922 F.3d 834
7th Cir.2019Background
- In 1993 Walter Goudy was tried and convicted for murder and attempted murder based largely on eyewitness identifications; later evidence suggested multiple witnesses had identified another man, Kaidi Harvell.
- Several pieces of exculpatory/impeachment evidence existed but were not disclosed at trial: a September 1, 1994 videotaped lineup showing multiple witnesses identifying Harvell and victim Nunn identifying a non-suspect; and investigator Napier’s handwritten interview notes showing Harvell initially denied involvement then changed his story.
- Cummings (an investigator who later became County Prosecutor) checked out the September 1 lineup video on September 6, 1994, kept it for about 14 months, and returned it after the court had denied defense access to police reports; whereabouts during that period are unexplained.
- This Court previously granted Goudy habeas relief (finding Brady materiality); the state declined retrial and Goudy was released, then sued Cummings and Napier under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his due-process (Brady) rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the investigators, but the Seventh Circuit reversed as to (1) suppression of the lineup videotape and (2) suppression of Harvell’s interview notes, finding triable issues on suppression, materiality, and qualified-immunity defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of lineup videotape | Cummings intentionally withheld the Sept. 1 video from prosecutors, preventing disclosure to defense. | District court: no evidence Cummings intentionally concealed it; defense could have obtained it by diligence. | Reversed: reasonable jury could infer Cummings intentionally retained/withheld the tape and blocked disclosure. |
| Suppression of Harvell interview notes | Napier/Cummings withheld handwritten notes showing Harvell first denied presence then changed story; notes were not provided to prosecutors. | Defendants: prosecutors knew the substance (Puckett said he was "certain" he knew), so no suppression; defense could have discovered via diligence. | Reversed: jury could find the notes were not turned over and that investigators caused that omission; suppression triable. |
| Materiality / Prejudice (Brady) | The videotape and notes cumulatively would have undermined confidence in the verdict given inconsistent IDs and lack of physical evidence. | Defendants argued evidence not material; district court previously held no suppression so no prejudice. | Reversed: a reasonable probability exists that suppressed evidence (especially the video alone, and added weight of notes) could have changed outcome; materiality is for jury. |
| Qualified immunity | Investigators claim qualified immunity because right was not clearly established in that specific context. | Goudy: withholding exculpatory/impeachment evidence from prosecutors violated clearly established Brady rights. | Reversed: right was clearly established; if jury finds suppression, qualified immunity not available. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality assessed cumulatively; undermining confidence standard)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady/Bagley impeachment-materiality framework)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady duty extends to evidence known only to police investigators)
- Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) (Brady elements and materiality explained)
- United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) (materiality standard in context of suppressed evidence)
- Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2015) (police discharge Brady duties by turning evidence over to prosecutors)
- Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988) (officers can be liable for withholding exculpatory information)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014) (qualified-immunity framework)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (specificity required in qualified-immunity inquiry)