Clyde Spencer v. Sharon Krause
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8712
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1984–85 Clark County Detective Sharon Krause investigated allegations that three children had been sexually abused; Clyde Spencer (Plaintiff) was charged based on investigative reports attributing detailed quotations to child witnesses.
- The children (Matthew and Kathryn) later testified that many quotations in Krause’s reports were fabricated; Kathryn testified she told Krause no abuse occurred.
- A prosecutor initially deemed the file legally insufficient; nonetheless charges were brought, Spencer pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford, served decades in prison, later withdrew the plea, and charges were dismissed.
- Spencer sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate fabrication of evidence by Krause; the jury found for Spencer and awarded $9 million.
- The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for defendants, concluding Spencer failed to prove Krause knew or should have known of Spencer’s innocence. Spencer appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding direct evidence of deliberate fabrication (misquoting witnesses in reports) obviates the need to prove the officer knew or should have known the suspect was innocent, and reinstated the jury verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deliberate fabrication claim requires proof the investigator knew or should have known of the plaintiff's innocence | Spencer: No — direct evidence of fabrication (misquotations) suffices without proving knowledge of innocence | Krause: Devereaux requires proof of either knowledge of innocence or use of coercive techniques that foreseeably produce false statements | Held: Reversed district court — where there is direct evidence of fabrication, plaintiff need not prove the officer knew or should have known of innocence (Costanich and Devereaux distinguished) |
| Whether jury instructions on causation were inadequate for not separately stating "but-for" and "proximate" causation | Spencer: Existing "suffered injury" and "moving force" instructions adequately captured causation | Krause: District court should have given explicit but-for and proximate-cause instructions | Held: Any instructional imprecision was harmless; jury expressly found injury resulted from fabricated evidence and that it was the moving force causing the injury |
| Whether plaintiff must prove lack of probable cause (absent fabricated evidence) | Spencer: Not required — fabrication claim focuses on whether the fabricated evidence caused his deprivation of liberty | Krause: Plaintiff should have to show lack of probable cause once fabricated evidence is removed | Held: Court rejects requiring lack of probable cause as element of Fourteenth Amendment fabrication claim; probable cause is irrelevant to whether fabrication caused the injury |
| Whether the district court erred in instructing on "deliberate indifference" as an element | Spencer: Instruction was proper and did not add an improper burden; it defined deliberate indifference separately from fabrication | Krause: Instruction risked conflating elements and improperly required deliberate indifference | Held: Instruction not reversible error; jury presumed to follow clear instructions and no reasonable likelihood of confusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) (establishes framework for deliberate-fabrication claims and two circumstantial proof methods)
- Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) (direct mischaracterization/misquotation in reports constitutes deliberate fabrication; no need to show knowledge of innocence when direct evidence exists)
- Gantt v. City of L.A., 717 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses causation and harmless error review for jury instructions)
- Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014) (rejects probable-cause bar to deliberate-fabrication claims; law enforcement cannot fabricate evidence even if other proof exists)
- Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 124 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 1997) (fabricating evidence cannot be excused by existence of lawful arrest or other proof)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) (discusses causation elements for fabricated-evidence claims)
- Gausvik v. Perez, 345 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2003) (carelessness or trivial inaccuracies in reports do not establish deliberate fabrication)