In Mellen v. Winn, published August 17, 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant police detective. When the detective was the lead investigator of a murder, a key witness told the detective that the plaintiff had confessed to involvement in the murder. One of the detective's fellow police officers was a sister of the key witness. There was evidence (which the detective disputed) that the officer told the detective her sister was the biggest liar she had ever met in her life, and that she never believed anything the sister said. The detective did not inquire further into the basis for the officer's opinion about her sister. The detective did not communicate these remarks to the prosecutor. At the criminal trial, there was extensive evidence that the key witness was not credible. The jury nevertheless convicted the plaintiff. She was sentenced to life without possibility of parole. She served almost two decades of her sentence until the officer's account of her sister's credibility came to light, and evidence was uncovered that exonerated the plaintiff. She sued the detective for violating her constitutional right to due process by failing to comply with the detective's obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) not to withhold impeachment evidence. The district court granted the detective summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
The 9th Circuit held that, as a matter of law, the detective withheld material impeachment evidence under Brady and Giglio. Since the key witness's testimony was the only evidence that linked the plaintiff to the murder, and the witness's testimony that the plaintiff confessed to the murder was so powerful, evidence that a police officer sibling considered the witness an untrustworthy liar was material. Even though there was other evidence at the criminal trial putting the witness's credibility at issue, that did not relieve the detective of the duty to turn over all material impeachment evidence. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact on whether the detective was deliberately indifferent to her duties under Brady/Giglio. Her failure to investigate further, evidence the detective embellished the witness's written statement by adding details not described in the witness's written statement, and other actions demonstrating arguable overzealousness raised a jury issue on whether the detective was deliberately indifferent. The 9th Circuit also held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the opinion of the plaintiff's police practices expert that a reasonable officer would have believed the evidence relevant. The evidence did not go to the legal conclusion of whether the detective acted reasonably; it went to the norms of police practice.
Comments