Drumgold v. Callahan, 806 F. Supp. 2d 405

Drumgold was wrongfully convicted for Tiffany Moore’s murder; Evans, a key witness, testified against him but later recanted, revealing he was paid housing, meals, and money by Callahan and that Evans had been fed details of the case by police.
Callahan allegedly withheld exculpatory impeachment evidence about Evans’s housing, meals, and modest cash for months, which undermined Drumgold’s trial credibility.
Drumgold’s state-court motion for a new trial led to his release and a 2003 nolle prosequi; this civil action was filed June 3, 2004, under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and Massachusetts law.
Trial in 2008 was split into three phases (liability for Callahan, liability of Roache/City, and damages); the first phase found Callahan liable on Evans-related claims, and retrial in 2009 awarded $14,000,000 in damages after determining materiality of withheld evidence.
The court denied Callahan’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, for a new trial, and for remittur, affirming the verdict and rejecting the intervening-cause defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Callahan’s conduct violated Brady by withholding material exculpatory evidence	Drumgold argues withholding was material impeachment evidence	Callahan contends evidence was not material to guilt/conviction	Brady violation affirmed; evidence material and undermined confidence in verdict
Whether Callahan is protected by qualified immunity	Drumgold contends rights were clearly established	Callahan claims no clear establishment in 1988	Qualified immunity denied; law clearly established that officers must turn over material exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor assigned to the case
Whether the jury instructions on causation properly instructed proximate causation under §1983	Drumgold argues instructions correctly tied causation to reasonably foreseeable harm	Callahan argues instruction was erroneous or improper	Instructions properly conveyed causation; proximate cause and substantial-factor standard correctly applied
Whether the exculpatory-evidence instruction was clear and correct	Drumgold contends instruction properly defined material exculpatory evidence	Callahan argues overbreadth/misleading	Instruction properly explained material exculpatory evidence and disclosure duty
Whether the intervening-causes defense affected damages/remittur	Drumgold argues damages should stand despite any post-conviction disclosure	Callahan argues post-conviction disclosure breaks chain of causation	Damages affirmed; intervening-cause defense rejected

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence when material)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (material impeachment evidence undermines confidence in outcome)
Agurs v. United States, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence even without request)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (prosecutor’s duty framed in tort-like causation context)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (reasonableness of official conduct for qualified immunity; emphasis on context)
United States v. Brandao, 539 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2008) (no Brady violation where not all material facts disclosed; context-dependent)
United States v. Dumas, 207 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2000) (impeachment evidence not necessarily create reasonable doubt if cumulative or collateral)
Marcano Rivera v. Turabo Med. Ctr. P'ship, 415 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2005) (deference to jury findings; harmonization of mixed verdicts)
Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (outer boundary of must-concede damages for wrongful imprisonment; deference to fact-finder)