Glenn Tinney v. Richland County
678 F. App'x 362
6th Cir.2017Background
- In 1992 Glenn Tinney gave two inconsistent confessions to the murder of Ted White after interviews by Richland County investigator Joseph Masi; assistant prosecutor David Mesaros witnessed one confession.
- Tinney pleaded guilty one day after indictment; the plea was based on the confessions and the prosecutor’s office did not notify the local police of the confessions until after the plea.
- Years later Tinney sought to vacate the conviction alleging the confessions were false and the product of mental vulnerability and coercion; the state court vacated the conviction in 2013 based on documented mental illness and doubts about the confessions.
- Tinney sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Ohio law alleging fabricated/false confessions, malicious prosecution, and due-process violations; many claims were dismissed earlier and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants in 2016.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law and recognizing various immunities and deficiencies in Tinney’s legal theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fifth Amendment / Self-incrimination at plea | Tinney: pleas and indictment are criminal proceedings; confesssions used at plea were involuntary due to mental illness, so Fifth Amendment violated | Defendants: right against self-incrimination was not clearly established pretrial; law indicated Fifth Amendment violation occurs at trial | Dismissed on qualified-immunity grounds; right not clearly established in 1992 |
| Malicious prosecution (Fourth Amendment) | Tinney: indictment based on false/knowingly misleading grand-jury testimony; no probable cause | Defendants: grand-jury indictment creates conclusive probable cause; grand-jury witnesses have absolute immunity | Summary judgment for defendants; Rehberg absolute immunity bars § 1983 claim based on grand-jury testimony |
| Procedural due process (use of fabricated evidence at plea) | Tinney: judge could not make an informed plea decision if unaware confessions were fabricated; due process implicated | Defendants: no clearly established right to exculpatory evidence before plea; claims concern evidence procurement (fraud on court) not a procedural-due-process defect | Dismissed; qualified immunity and lack of established procedure; claim more appropriately framed as fraud on the court |
| Substantive due process (shock the conscience) | Tinney: exploiting his mental illness to elicit false confessions and securing a plea shocks the conscience | Defendants: conduct lacked physical force or bodily injury; law requires more than psychological coercion to be "shocking" at that time | Dismissed; conduct not clearly established as conscience-shocking absent physical violation |
| Survivability of claims against deceased prosecutor (Mayer) | Tinney: claims should survive Mayer II’s death | Defendants: § 1983 is statutory and Ohio survivability rules require physical-injury/ personal-injury showing for survival | Dismissed; federal claims do not survive under applicable state survivability principles |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (observing constitutional self-incrimination violation occurs at trial)
- Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (plurality opinion limiting Fifth Amendment protection absent trial use)
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (grand-jury witnesses have absolute immunity from § 1983 claims based on their testimony)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (absolute immunity for witness testimony, including perjury claims)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (mental illness alone does not render confession involuntary for due process)
- Barnes v. Wright, 449 F.3d 709 (indictment by a valid grand jury establishes probable cause)
- Robertson v. Lucas, 753 F.3d 606 (elements of § 1983 malicious-prosecution claim; scope of pre-plea disclosure rights)