960 F.3d 1094
8th Cir.2020Background
- Jane Doe was robbed at gunpoint and later provided call logs from her stolen phone; police searches tied numbers to associates of Lamont Carter.
- Investigators identified Cornell McKay from database links and photo searches; Doe identified McKay in a photo lineup and an in-person lineup; McKay was tried, convicted, and sentenced.
- Homicide detectives separately interviewed Kaylin Perry, who told them she believed her boyfriend Keith Esters had come home with Doe’s phone and money; homicide investigators relayed interviews to robbery detectives but the robbery detectives testified they lacked specific knowledge of Perry’s statement implicating Esters.
- Officers later showed Doe a photo including Esters; she did not identify him. Esters later confessed to an unrelated murder (Boken) but denied the Doe robbery; McKay’s convictions were reversed on appeal and the State declined to retry, leading to McKay’s release.
- McKay sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) suppression/destruction of exculpatory evidence (Brady), (2) fabrication of evidence, (3) failure to investigate, (4) conspiracy, and (5) municipal liability against the City/Board; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding McKay produced no evidence of bad faith, fabrication, reckless investigation, or a constitutional violation sufficient to sustain conspiracy or Monell claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression/destruction of evidence (Brady) | McKay: phone destroyed; Perry’s inculpatory statements to homicide unit were suppressed; a homicide-interview video was lost/destroyed | Defs: no evidence of intentional destruction or of having been informed of Perry’s specific inculpatory statement; no proof a video existed | Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of bad faith or suppression of material exculpatory evidence |
| Fabrication of evidence / suggestive ID | McKay: officers coached Doe to identify him and omitted Perry’s statements from reports to manufacture evidence | Defs: lineups were not impermissibly suggestive; Doe consistently and independently identified McKay; no proof officers knew of Perry’s inculpatory statement | Summary judgment for defendants — no evidence of fabrication or suggestive procedure creating likelihood of misidentification |
| Failure to investigate / conscience-shocking conduct | McKay: officers failed to investigate Esters as an alternative suspect | Defs: officers interviewed Perry, traced the phone purchaser, included Esters in photo lineup; Doe rejected Esters | Summary judgment for defendants — investigation was undertaken and not conscience-shocking or reckless |
| Conspiracy under § 1983 | McKay: officers conspired to deprive him of rights by manufacturing evidence and withholding exculpatory information | Defs: no underlying constitutional violation or evidence of agreement/acts in furtherance | Summary judgment for defendants — conspiracy claim fails absent a constitutional violation |
| Monell / municipal liability | McKay: City/Board maintained policies/customs causing violations | Defs: no municipal liability because no employee constitutional violation occurred | Summary judgment for City/Board — Monell claim fails because no predicate constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom causing a constitutional violation)
- Schmidt v. City of Bella Villa, 557 F.3d 564 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of a § 1983 claim)
- Pace v. City of Des Moines, 201 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2000) (due-process test for improper identifications)
- United States v. Murdock, 928 F.2d 293 (8th Cir. 1991) (impermissible suggestiveness and totality analysis for IDs)
- Wilson v. Lawrence Cty., 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001) (use of false evidence/testimony can violate due process)
- Cooper v. Martin, 634 F.3d 477 (8th Cir. 2011) (failure-to-investigate claim requires conscience-shocking conduct)
- Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2008) (distinguishing negligence from constitutional violations in investigations)
- Helmig v. Fowler, 828 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2016) (Brady § 1983 claim fails without evidence of intent or bad faith)
- Zayed v. Associated Bank, N.A., 913 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2019) (party must provide more than speculation to survive summary judgment)
- State v. McKay, 459 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (appellate reversal of McKay’s convictions leading to remand and decline to retry)