◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 47 O’Neal in the planning of the raid. Additionally, Johnson participated in the arrangement between Hanrahan and Leonard whereby Leonard agreed not to obtain indict- ments against any state officials for their actions with regard to the raid in exchange for the dismissal of the state indictments against the survivors. And during the pretrial discovery in this suit, the federal defendants continued to engage in dilatory and obstructive tactics to conceal evidence of their involvement in the planning of the raid. See infra, pp. 68-73. A jury reasonably could infer that a conspiracy existed to conceal the facts of the raid and to continue an unfounded prosecution against plaintiffs.28 B. Purtell, Koludrovic, and Sadunas We hold that plaintiffs’ evidence does not present a prima facie case as to Purtell and Koludrovic. Purtell was the director of the Chicago Crime Laboratory and the supervisor of Koludrovic and Sadunas. There is, however, no evidence that he participated in any agreement or effort to distort the evidence found inside the apartment on December 4. Similarly, plaintiffs’ case 8 In Count 7 plaintiffs charge Hanrahan, Jalovec, the raiders, and the federal defenaants (except O’Neal) with fail- ing to prevent the post-raid conspiracy in violation of section 1986. Plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case on this theory of liability. Additionally, in Count 11 of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that Hanrahan, Jalovec, Groth, O’Neal, Mitchell, Johnson, and Piper conspired to obstruct justice in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Section 1985(2) states: . ; , If two or more persons conspire for the same purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protean of the laws, or to injure him or his property for awfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws. We conclude, on the basis of our review of the evidence op porting plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims, that plaintiffs establish- ed a prima facie case of a section 1985(2) violation.