◆ SpookStack

52 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 the jury and, accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s directed verdicts as to these defendants.” VI. CLAIMS OF IMMUNITY The Supreme Court stated many years ago that the “very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 187, 163 (1803). When Congress adopted section 1988, it decided that “every person” who, under color of state law, deprived another of a con- stitutional right, privilege, or immunity was liable to the victim for damages. Since then, however, the courts have recognized certain exceptions to the unrestricted language of this provision and have afforded immunity to persons acting in specified official capacities. Both the state and federal defendants claim that they enjoy official immunity for their actions in connection with the raid on the apartment on West Monroe Street. The entreaties of public officials for immunity for their official wrongdoing, however, should be treated with cir- 29 In summary, a prima facie case has been made out against defendants as follows: Counts 1-4: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants. Count 5: Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders. Count 6: Hanrahan, Jalovec, and the raiders. Count 7: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, and Mitchell. Count 8: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, and Mulchrone. Count 9: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, ° Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, and Mulchrone. Count 10: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, Johnson, Piper, Mitchell, Sadunas, Meade, Mulchrone, Ervanian, Kukowinski, Sorosky, and Meltreger. Count 11: Hanrahan, Jalovec, Groth, and the federal defendants. Count 14: Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defendants.