Francisco Carrillo, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles
798 F.3d 1210
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Two men (O’Connell and Carrillo) were convicted of murders decades ago and later obtained state habeas relief after new evidence and recantations undermined key identifications.
- Both sued LASD officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging officers withheld material exculpatory and impeachment evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, resulting in wrongful convictions.
- O’Connell alleged officers suppressed handwritten notes and witness statements (eyewitness uncertainty, photo-lineup coercion, and evidence pointing to an alternate suspect).
- Carrillo alleged deputy Ditsch coached an eyewitness (Turner) through a gang-photo book, affirmed Turner’s selection of Carrillo, and failed to disclose threats and suggestive tactics; several eyewitnesses later recanted.
- District courts denied qualified immunity (judgment on the pleadings in O’Connell; summary judgment in Carrillo). Defendants appealed, arguing Brady did not clearly bind police at the time or that the specific evidence was not clearly Brady material.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) pre-existing Ninth Circuit precedent clearly established officers’ Brady obligations, and (2) the withheld evidence in both cases would have been plainly recognized as Brady material by any reasonable officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were police officers clearly bound by Brady at the time of the investigations? | Plaintiffs: Yes — officers had a duty to disclose material/exculpatory/impeaching evidence. | Officers: No — Brady applied to prosecutors, not clearly to police in 1984/1991. | Held: Yes — Butler and controlling circuit precedent made officers’ Brady duty clear before these events. |
| Was suppression of impeachment evidence (witness uncertainty, lineup coercion) clearly Brady material? | Plaintiffs: Yes — withheld notes and witness statements were impeachment/exculpatory and would have undermined identifications. | Officers: No — the specific withheld material was not obviously Brady material to a reasonable officer. | Held: Yes — impeachment evidence implicating credibility and suggestive ID tactics falls squarely within Brady. |
| Was evidence suggesting an alternative suspect clearly Brady material? | Plaintiffs: Yes — notes indicating a prior attempt by another man would have supported an alternative-suspect theory and altered the dying declaration’s meaning. | Officers: No — the lead was a "dead lead" or not obviously exculpatory. | Held: Yes — evidence pointing to another suspect is plainly Brady material and should have been disclosed. |
| Are defendants entitled to qualified immunity on these § 1983 Brady claims? | Plaintiffs: No — right was clearly established and the withheld evidence was Brady material. | Officers: Yes — qualified immunity applies because law was not clearly established with sufficient specificity. | Held: No qualified immunity — the Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of immunity and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of material favorable evidence by the prosecution violates due process)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence affecting witness credibility falls within Brady)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (reaffirming that impeachment as well as exculpatory evidence is Brady material)
- United States v. Butler, 567 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1978) (police are part of the prosecution; nondisclosure by investigators can constitute Brady violation)
- Barbee v. Warden, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir. 1964) (police withholding exculpatory evidence cannot be excused because duty to disclose is that of the State)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf, including police)
- Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2009) (police duty to disclose confessions/alternative-suspect evidence; evidence undermining confidence in outcome should be disclosed)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable)