645 F. App'x 438
6th Cir.2016Background
- In 1990 Virginia LeFever was convicted in Ohio of murdering her husband based largely on forensic toxicology (Ferguson) and coroner findings (Dr. Raker); she served ~20 years.
- Post-conviction, it was revealed Ferguson had repeatedly misrepresented his graduation date and pled no contest to falsification, prompting an Ohio court in 2010 to grant Virginia a new trial; indictment later dismissed and she was released.
- Virginia sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Ferguson (former FCCO chief toxicologist), Dr. Raker (Licking County coroner), and Detective Ballantine (Newark PD), alleging Brady violations (failure to disclose impeachment/exculpatory evidence) and fabrication of evidence; her son Alex sued for deprivation of familial integrity.
- The district court denied absolute immunity on fabrication (later reversed for Ferguson by this court), denied Virginia summary judgment on Brady, but granted Ferguson, Raker, and Ballantine qualified immunity on Brady claims; it dismissed Alex’s familial-integrity claim as derivative.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed: no Brady violation by Ferguson, Raker, or Ballantine (alternative ground to qualified-immunity reasoning), denied Virginia’s motion against Ferguson, and affirmed dismissal/summary judgment on Alex’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ferguson’s nondisclosure of (a) past falsehoods about his graduation year, (b) later-deposition qualifications about arsenic, and (c) a manuscript, violated Brady | LeFever: these items were impeachment/exculpatory and material; nondisclosure undermined confidence in verdict | Ferguson: testimony at trial is absolutely immune; disclosed facts (toxicology data) and credentials still supported his findings; impeachment value was weak | No Brady violation — withheld items would not have undermined confidence in verdict; summary judgment for Ferguson affirmed |
| Whether Dr. Raker’s failure to disclose his "true opinions" about routes of arsenic/strychnine entry and knowledge of Ferguson’s manuscript violated Brady | LeFever: Raker’s divergent opinions and knowledge of manuscript were impeachment/exculpatory and material | Raker: he relied on Ferguson’s toxicology (no independent testing); the core cause (amitriptyline by injection) remained intact; manuscript had little impeachment value to him | No Brady violation — nondisclosure did not render the outcome unreliable; qualified immunity affirmed |
| Whether Detective Ballantine failed to disclose Brady material (Hamann syringe statement, notes of Fardal’s non-opinion, Ferguson manuscript) | LeFever: these items would impeach or exculpate and were material | Ballantine: statements/notes offered little exculpatory value; Fardal had no independent toxicology; manuscript not shown to Ballantine; syringe lot info not exculpatory | No Brady violation — items not material; qualified immunity/summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Alex (son) states an independent § 1983 claim for violation of familial integrity from his mother’s wrongful conviction | Alex: his own right to familial integrity was violated by defendants’ wrongful-conviction conduct | Defendants: § 1983 claims are personal to the injured party; injuries derivative of Virginia’s rights are non-cognizable | Dismissed — claim is derivative, not a cognizable personal § 1983 claim; dismissal and summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence includes deals and statements affecting witness credibility; prosecutor must disclose)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality assessed collectively — evidence is material if it undermines confidence in outcome)
- Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449 (2009) (reiterating reasonable-probability standard for Brady materiality)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial/testimonial immunity principles)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (testimony at trial enjoys absolute immunity)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (standards for investigator liability under Brady; liability for apparent exculpatory value or deliberate withholding)
- Westerfield v. United States, [citation="483 F. App'x 950"] (6th Cir. 2012) (past perjury by government witness can be Brady impeachment evidence)