DeWITT v. District of Columbia
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 160
| D.C. | 2012Background
- DeWitt was convicted of second-degree murder and weapons offenses in 1991 for the Ridley shooting; conviction affirmed on appeal in 1993.
- Judge Burgess vacated the conviction in 2004 after IPA proceedings, finding it more likely than not that DeWitt is actually innocent, but not conclusively innocent.
- U.S. Attorney declined to re-prosecute; DeWitt was released on December 24, 2004.
- In 2005 DeWitt sued the District and four MPD detectives for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and UIA claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on grounds including (i) §12-309 notice, (ii) probable cause, and (iii) collateral estoppel due to Burgess’s IPA findings; the Court of Appeals discusses two rulings and affirms.
- The court leaves open the continuous-tort analysis under §12-309 for another day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause defeats false imprisonment and malicious prosecution claims | DeWitt asserts police misconduct undermines probable cause | District defendants had probable cause based on the investigation and Burgess IPA findings | Probable cause existed; judgments for District affirmed |
| Whether Burgess’s IPA ruling precludes UIA relief and collateral estoppel applies | DeWitt argues UIA should proceed and innocence can be proven anew | Collateral estoppel bars relitigating innocence; UIA prongs may be met but estopped | UIA claim barred by collateral estoppel; affirmance of summary judgment on UIA |
| Whether the first UIA prong was satisfied by Burgess’s IPA order | Burgess’s finding of not clearly innocent satisfies §2-422(1) | Unclear if reversal on non-clear-innocence satisfies §2-422(1) | Court leaves undecided but assumes prong satisfied for argument; estoppel forecloses prong two |
| Whether DeWitt had a full and fair opportunity to litigate innocence during IPA proceedings | DeWitt claims he lacked cross-examination of key witnesses | IPA proceeding afforded substantial opportunity; he did not appeal Burgess ruling | DeWitt barred by collateral estoppel; IPA process deemed fair overall |
| Whether §12-309 notice issue should bar the false imprisonment claim | Notice requirement executes within six months after injury | Not reached due to other dispositive rulings; notice unresolved | Not necessary to address; court leaves for another day |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarke v. District of Columbia, 311 A.2d 508 (D.C.1973) (unlawful detention; probable cause defense to false imprisonment)
- Magwood v. Giddings, 672 A.2d 1083 (D.C.1996) (probable cause requires more than mere suspicion)
- Gabrou v. May Dep't Stores Co., 462 A.2d 1102 (D.C.1983) (probable cause and defense to false imprisonment)
- Weisman v. Middleton, 390 A.2d 996 (D.C.1978) (probable cause may rely on reasonably trustworthy information)
- Johnson v. United States, 349 A.2d 458 (D.C.1975) (test for probable cause at the moment of arrest)
- Perkins v. United States, 936 A.2d 303 (D.C.2007) (probable cause not required to be as strong as proof for conviction)
- Jarett v. Walker, 201 A.2d 523 (D.C.1964) (malicious prosecution elements including absence of probable cause)
- Bumphus v. Smith, 189 A.2d 130 (D.C.1963) (prior conviction as evidence of probable cause unless fraud or corrupt means)
- Wilson v. Hart, 829 A.2d 511 (D.C.2003) (collateral estoppel / issue preclusion principles)