David Ayers v. City of Cleveland, 773 F.3d 161

Dorothy Brown was murdered in December 1999; David Ayers (a CMHA security officer) was later arrested and convicted largely on testimony from jailmate Donald Hutchinson and a written statement from Ken Smith.
Detectives Michael Cipo and Denise Kovach led the investigation, focused on Ayers despite conflicting phone records, surveillance, and other witness statements; reports showed investigative miscues and, in at least one instance, an affidavit claiming review of a tape the detective had not actually seen.
Hutchinson, after meeting with Cipo and Kovach, returned to Ayers’s jail pod and later testified that Ayers confessed; the state court denied a suppression motion and a jury convicted Ayers, who served 12 years.
This Court granted Ayers habeas relief, concluding detectives had created circumstances likely to induce incriminating statements without counsel; Ayers was released in 2011 when the State declined to retry him.
Ayers then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Brady violations, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence, conspiracy, and IIED; at bench and trial proceedings, some state-law claims were dismissed, and a jury awarded Ayers $13,210,000 on the remaining federal claims.
On appeal, Cipo and Kovach challenged denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment, denial of judgment as a matter of law and sufficiency of the evidence, and the district court’s refusal to exclude plaintiff’s expert on trace/DNA evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity denial at summary judgment	Ayers argued disputed facts precluded immunity and supported liability	Cipo/Kovach contended summary denial of immunity was erroneous	Forfeited on appeal: defendants failed to preserve the defense at trial (no Rule 50(b) renewal); summary denial nonappealable after full trial
Preverdict JMOL and sufficiency of evidence	Ayers urged facts supported the jury verdict on Brady and malicious prosecution	Defendants argued evidence was insufficient and JMOL should have been granted	Forfeited on appeal: defendants did not file a post-verdict Rule 50(b) motion, so appellate review is barred
Admission of Reich (trace/DNA) expert	Reich’s testimony tended to show no DNA link to Ayers, supporting innocence, damages, and termination in favor for malicious-prosecution claim	Defendants argued testimony was irrelevant, concerned techniques unavailable in 2000, cumulative, and unduly prejudicial	District court did not abuse discretion: testimony was relevant under liberal Rule 401 standard and not substantially outweighed by Rule 403 concerns
Use of habeas finding and prior misconduct evidence	Ayers relied on prior habeas finding that detectives induced statements and withheld/exaggerated evidence	Defendants maintained trial record did not support liability or damages	Appellate court declined to relitigate those merits where defendants had forfeited preserved procedural vehicles; affirmed judgment otherwise

Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (2011) (summary-judgment denials generally nonappealable after full trial; interlocutory unless purely legal)
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995) (distinguishes legal issues from disputed factual issues on interlocutory appeals of summary-judgment denials)
In re Amtrust Fin. Corp., 694 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2012) (immediate appeal allowed when denial turns on pure legal question)
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (qualified-immunity defense waived when not preserved via Rule 50(b) after trial)
Unitherm Food Sys. v. Swift-Eckrich, 546 U.S. 394 (2006) (failure to renew JMOL post-verdict bars appellate reversal for insufficiency of evidence)
Maxwell v. Dodd, 662 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2011) (must move pre- and post-verdict under Rule 50 to preserve JMOL challenge)
Ayers v. Hudson, 623 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2010) (habeas decision finding detectives induced incriminating statements in violation of Sixth Amendment)