◆ SpookStack

®@ : 6 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 3 occupants of the apartment, their prosecution by the Cook County Siate’s Attorney for criminal offenses, 2 coroner’s inquest, and an internal investigation by the Chicago Police Department. A federal and two state grand jury investigations were initiated. Indictments were returned by the Special Cook County Grand Jury against several of the present defendants for conspiring to obstruct justice. The case terminated when defen- dants’ motions for acquittal were granted at the close of the prosécution’s case. Finally, this ‘civil action was initiated. a The mothers of Hampton and Clark, as administra- trices of their sons’ estates, and the seven survivors of the December 4 incident filed: four separate actions in 1970 against a number of city and state defendants. The actions were consolidated in an amended complaint. filed in the district court in April 1972.1 The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court denied the motions by the fourteen police officers participating in the raid. The court dismissed the complaint as to the remaining defendants. Upon appeal this court affirmed in part and reversed in part: Hampton v. City of Chicago, 484 F.2d 602 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 415. U.S. 917 (1974), (“Hampton I”).2 1 In June 1972 the death of Fred Howard, one of the police officers, was suggested on the record and the cause was dismissed as to him. we v. City of Chicago, 389 IF. Supp. 695 (N.D. Til. ds $ We summarized our action as follows: Insofar as the district court’s order of February 8, 1972, . dismissed the charges against the City of Chicago and the County of Cook, it is reversed with respect to the Brewer complaint and affirmed as modified with respect to the Johnson complaint; insofar as it dismissed the charges against Mayor Daley and Superintendent Conlisk, it is ‘af- irmed; insofar as it dismissed the chara against defen- dants Hanrahan, Jalovec, Mulchrone, Eirvanian, Meade, Kukowinski, Purtell, Koludrovic, Sadunas, Sorosky. and Meltreger, it is reversed. The case is remanded to the dis- trict court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 484 F.2d 602 at 611. Yee eNom Met one,