A murder investigation in Peoria, Illinois, in 1977 changed the course of a 14-year-old boy’s life. Johnnie Lee Savory was taken in for questioning after two teenagers were found murdered, and after more than a day of interrogation, he confessed to the killings. His first conviction was later overturned because the confession was found to be involuntary, but a second trial resulted in another conviction. He spent decades behind bars before being released on parole in 2006 and pardoned in 2014. Nearly half a century after the killings, a civil rights case brought by Savory reached the Seventh Circuit, which ruled in August 2026 that the former officers were entitled to immunity.
A 29-hour police interrogation ended with a 14-year-old confessing to two murders
As reported by Illinois Courts, the case began on 18 January 1977, when 19-year-old Connie Cooper and her 14-year-old brother, James Robinson, were found stabbed to death at their home in Peoria. Their mother and stepfather discovered the bodies at around 4 pm. Police collected several items from the property, including a black nightstick, a pipe, blood samples and hairs found in different parts of the house.About a week later, investigators Edgar Haynes and George Pinkney learnt that Savory had spent time with Robinson on the evening before the murders. News footage also showed him at the property after the killings. The officers subsequently visited his school and asked him to accompany them to the police station. Although he was initially reluctant to answer questions, he agreed to go.What followed lasted approximately 29 hours from the time officers first met him at school until he confessed. Detectives questioned him in shifts, showed him photographs from the crime scene and challenged his answers. He also spoke briefly with his probation officer that evening. Police then arranged a polygraph examination, telling him he could go home after completing it.The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reported, the first examination took place late that night. Savory was given his Miranda warnings at around 11.30 pm and said he did not want to continue speaking to police. The questioning stopped, but he was held overnight at a detention centre. His father was informed around midnight. Savory slept for several hours before being taken back to the police department the following morning.The questioning resumed after officers read him his rights again. He met with his father and was later asked to undergo another polygraph test. During that examination, private examiner Ed Bowers reportedly raised his voice, moved close to the teenager and accused him of being a murderer. Savory subsequently stood by a window and cried. At 7.35 pm, he confessed to the two killings. He later changed his account and denied involvement.
His first conviction was overturned, but a second trial brought another guilty verdict
Savory was charged with two counts of first-degree murder in February 1977. His first trial ended with a conviction, but the Illinois appellate court overturned it in 1980, finding that his confession had not been voluntary.Savory was tried again in 1981, with the second case including testimony from members of the Ivy family. Three witnesses, Tina, Ella and Frank Ivy, told the jury that Savory had said he accidentally cut Robinson but left him alive. As reported, the jury found him guilty again, and he received a prison sentence of 40 to 80 years.Questions about the witness accounts emerged in the years that followed. Tina and Frank Ivy signed affidavits in 1983 withdrawing their earlier testimony. Frank later provided another affidavit in 2003, saying his testimony at the second trial had been incorrect and that an officer had pressured him to make false statements.Savory also pursued legal efforts to obtain access to physical evidence from the murders. He sought DNA testing of hairs collected at the scene and a piece cut from a pair of blue trousers taken from his father. A court granted his request in 2012, but the original material was no longer available for testing because it had not been preserved by the police department. Testing of the remaining trousers did not show blood.He was released on parole in 2006 after spending around three decades in prison. In 2014, while a motion seeking a new trial was pending, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn granted him a pardon. The pardon came after years of efforts to challenge the conviction, although it did not amount to a judicial finding that the second conviction was wrongful.
Savory’s civil rights lawsuit targeted police conduct
In 2017, Savory brought a federal civil rights action against 16 former Peoria police officers, the City of Peoria and Bowers. He relied on Section 1983 of federal law, which allows individuals to seek redress when someone acting under state authority violates their constitutional rights.His allegations covered several aspects of the investigation. He claimed that police had unlawfully detained him, obtained his confession through coercive questioning and mishandled evidence that might have helped establish his innocence. He also alleged that officers had fabricated evidence, including reports of statements attributed to him and accounts from witnesses.The case initially faced a major procedural obstacle when it was dismissed as being outside the applicable limitation period. That decision was reversed by the Seventh Circuit sitting en banc in 2020, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. It was subsequently transferred to the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois.The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing that they were protected by qualified or absolute immunity. The district court rejected their request. It found that factual disagreements prevented it from resolving the unlawful detention claim at that stage and that existing legal standards could have alerted the officers and Bowers to the constitutional problems with their conduct. It also considered the allegations concerning missing and allegedly fabricated evidence sufficient to prevent the defendants from obtaining judgment in their favour.The officers and Bowers appealed that decision. The case, Savory v Andrews, was heard by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with arguments taking place on 11 September 2025. The court issued its ruling on 14 August 2026.
Seventh Circuit finds the officers were entitled to qualified immunity
The appeals court reversed the district court’s decision, concluding that the officers could not be held liable on the claims under consideration. Its reasoning centred on qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield public officials from civil liability when their conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.On the unlawful detention claim, the majority concluded that the officers had at least arguable probable cause. It considered the information available to investigators, including Savory’s association with Robinson, his presence at the crime scene after the killings, the hairs collected from the property and statements reportedly made to police by a reporter and Savory’s foster mother.The court said officers could reasonably rely on those accounts when assessing whether there was a basis to detain him. It also pointed out that Savory had not produced evidence showing that the officers had fabricated the reporter’s or foster mother’s statements. On that basis, the majority held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity.The judges also addressed the missing physical evidence. Savory had argued that police officers were responsible for the disappearance of the fabric sample from the trousers and hairs collected from the victims’ hands. The majority found that the available record did not establish when those items had been destroyed or whether officers had acted in bad faith.Under the constitutional standards applied by the court, the destruction of potentially useful evidence does not automatically establish a due process violation. The circumstances, including whether the material had apparent exculpatory value and whether it was deliberately destroyed in bad faith, matter. The court found that Savory had not supplied enough specific evidence to establish those requirements.
Court says earlier rulings did not clearly prohibit the interrogation methods
The confession claim presented a separate question. The majority acknowledged that Savory had been questioned for many hours over two days, had undergone polygraph examinations and had been subjected to aggressive questioning. However, it examined whether legal decisions already in existence in 1977 had made the alleged conduct clearly unconstitutional.Savory relied on earlier US Supreme Court decisions involving the interrogation of children. One was Haley v Ohio, a 1948 case concerning a 15-year-old questioned by police for five hours overnight. Another was Gallegos v Colorado, decided in 1962, involving a 14-year-old held for five days without access to a lawyer, parent or another supportive adult.The Seventh Circuit majority distinguished those cases from Savory’s circumstances. It pointed out that officers had given him Miranda warnings, including information about his right to legal counsel. When he initially said he did not wish to speak, the questioning stopped. He was also able to meet with his father and probation officer before making his confession.The judges therefore concluded that the earlier decisions did not put the alleged unconstitutionality of the interrogation beyond debate. The fact that Savory was a child and had been questioned for an extended period was not enough, in the majority’s assessment, to establish that the officers should have known their particular methods violated the Constitution.The same reasoning applied to Bowers. Although he was a private polygraph examiner rather than a police officer, the court considered the allegations against him in the context of the interrogation. It found that the legal position at the time did not clearly establish that his alleged conduct was unconstitutional, even if he had participated in an effort to obtain a confession.
Officers also receive absolute immunity over their trial testimony
The court considered Savory’s allegations that officers had fabricated police reports recording statements attributed to him. He argued that the reports and subsequent testimony had contributed to violations of his right to a fair trial.The majority drew a distinction between allegedly false investigative material and evidence actually used against a defendant in court. It found that the reports in question had not been introduced or relied upon at Savory’s criminal trial. As a result, their creation did not establish the required connection to a violation of his right to a fair trial.The judges also addressed the officers’ testimony. Even if officers had given evidence consistent with allegedly fabricated reports, they could not be held civilly liable on the basis of their trial testimony alone. Witnesses are generally protected by absolute immunity for statements made while testifying in court, including police officers.The ruling therefore extended beyond the qualified immunity arguments concerning the interrogation and detention. The officers also retained absolute immunity against the particular claim based on their testimony at trial.
A dissenting judge disagreed with the majority’s reasoning
The August 2026 decision was not unanimous in every respect. Circuit Judge Candace Jackson-Akiwumi agreed with the outcome on the destruction of evidence claim and the protection afforded to officers for their trial testimony, but disagreed with the majority on the unlawful detention and coerced confession claims.
