11 F.4th 163
2d Cir.2021Background
- Vernon Horn and Marquis Jackson were convicted in 2000 for a New Haven robbery–murder; each later served ~17+ years before convictions were vacated in 2018.
- Connecticut State Police firearms examiner James Stephenson analyzed scene casings and prepared a 1999 General Rifling Characteristics (GRC) report (±0.002") that did not list Beretta as a possible match; a memo based on that report (but not the report itself) was provided to prosecutors and defense.
- After a prosecutor questioned whether a Beretta could be the weapon, Stephenson prepared a 2000 GRC report (±0.004") listing Beretta models; neither GRC report was disclosed to the State’s Attorney or defense before trial.
- Stephenson testified at trial that new information from the prosecutor made a Beretta possible and denied preparing reports at the prosecutor’s direction. Horn and Jackson were convicted; belated disclosure of phone records and the GRC reports led to vacatur and release.
- Horn and Jackson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Brady violations for withholding exculpatory ballistics reports; Stephenson moved to dismiss asserting qualified immunity (both cases) and absolute immunity (Horn). The district court denied dismissal; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stephenson is entitled to qualified immunity for withholding exculpatory ballistics reports under Brady | Horn/Jackson: forensic examiner working for state police lab had Brady duty to disclose exculpatory reports to prosecutors; that duty was clearly established by 1999 | Stephenson: Walker and Brady did not clearly establish in 1999 that unsworn forensic examiners (lab analysts) owed a Brady disclosure duty | Court: Denied qualified immunity — Walker, Kyles, and circuit precedent made Brady disclosure duties applicable to forensic lab examiners by 1999 |
| Whether Stephenson is entitled to absolute immunity for creating the 2000 GRC report | Horn: report was not prepared at the prosecutor’s request; no allegation Nicholson instructed Stephenson to generate or saw the 2000 report pretrial | Stephenson: acted at prosecutor Nicholson’s direction as part of prosecutorial advocacy, so absolute immunity applies | Court: Denied absolute immunity — complaint does not allege Nicholson requested or saw the 2000 report, and facts construed in plaintiffs’ favor support lack of prosecutorial direction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (establishes prosecution's duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government's behalf, including police)
- Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293 (2d Cir. 1992) (police satisfy Brady by turning exculpatory evidence over to prosecutors)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (distinguishes prosecutorial advocacy for absolute immunity analysis)
- Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2008) (state crime-lab technician would have known suppression of exculpatory test results violated rights)
- Moldowan v. City of Warren, 578 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2009) (forensic expert may be subject to § 1983 suit for deliberately withholding exculpatory forensic evidence)