Duzuan Lester v. Keith Roberts, 986 F.3d 599

Background

In August 2007 Dominic Hudson was murdered in Louisville; Detective Keith Roberts led the homicide investigation.
Years later witness Jasmine Williams told police she rode with Eugene Baker and a man called "Desean" to Hudson's apartment, said Baker later confessed, and picked Duzuan Lester from a photo array as "Desean."
Other witnesses placed two young Black men at the apartment and running toward a nearby BP; Baker was identified by one eyewitness and later convicted at retrial.
DNA from a hat at the scene produced a mixture consistent with contributions from Lester and Baker.
A grand jury indicted Baker and Lester in 2012; Lester was acquitted at trial and spent about 20 months in custody before acquittal.
Lester sued Detective Roberts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution/unreasonable seizure) and for Kentucky malicious prosecution; the district court granted summary judgment for Roberts and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Existence of probable cause for prosecution/pretrial seizure	Lester: Roberts failed to investigate, relied on unreliable/wavering witness, and omitted exculpatory information so no probable cause	Roberts: Williams' ID plus corroborating evidence (other witnesses, confessions to others, and DNA on hat) established a substantial chance of guilt	Probable cause existed as a matter of law; summary judgment affirmed
Overcoming grand-jury presumption and effect of alleged omissions	Lester: omissions to prosecutors/grand jury undermined the indictment's presumption of probable cause	Roberts: grand-jury finding creates a presumption; omissions differ from affirmative falsities; Rehberg grants absolute immunity for grand-jury testimony/preparatory work	Court declined to rely on or decide presumption/absolute-immunity issues and resolved case on probable-cause ground; omissions generally insufficient to defeat presumption
Qualified immunity	Lester: constitutional violation (malicious prosecution/unreasonable seizure)	Roberts: even if a seizure occurred, no clearly established law shows his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment	Court found no constitutional violation; Lester identified no controlling case rendering probable-cause determination clearly established
Kentucky malicious prosecution tort claim	Lester: state-law malicious prosecution because lack of probable cause	Roberts: Kentucky claim requires lack of probable cause; same facts support finding of probable cause	Kentucky tort claim fails for same reason as federal claim; probable cause existed

Key Cases Cited

Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017) (pretrial detention is a Fourth Amendment "seizure"; probable cause is the controlling Fourth Amendment inquiry)
District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (probable cause requires only a substantial chance of criminal activity)
Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320 (2014) (probable cause is lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (an indictment by a properly constituted grand jury substitutes for a neutral magistrate's probable-cause finding)
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992) (prosecutors are not required to present exculpatory evidence to a grand jury)
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) (absolute immunity protects witnesses for their grand-jury testimony and certain preparatory activities)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991) (extended pretrial detention requires a prompt neutral probable-cause determination)
Ex Parte United States, 287 U.S. 241 (1932) (an indictment fair on its face conclusively determines probable cause for holding an accused to answer)
Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution-type claim in this circuit)
King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2017) (discusses grand-jury probable-cause presumption and how plaintiffs may overcome it)