Kelly Park v. Karen Thompson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4426
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kelly Soo Park was charged with the 2008 murder of Juliana Redding; DNA linked Park to the victim and Park was tried in 2013.
- Park planned a third-party culpability defense implicating John Gilmore; defense investigators interviewed Gilmore’s ex-girlfriend Melissa Ayala, who reported Gilmore had choked her while referencing Redding’s death and agreed to testify for the defense.
- After Park notified prosecutors of Ayala as a defense witness, Detective Karen Thompson (lead investigator) called Ayala, allegedly misrepresented evidence, emphasized Gilmore was "really upset," and told Ayala she did not have to cooperate with defense investigators.
- Shortly thereafter, Ayala was charged by another police office (after contact on information/allegation that Thompson instigated charges), invoked her Fifth Amendment right at trial, and refused to testify; the trial judge precluded Park from presenting her third-party culpability evidence.
- Park was ultimately acquitted, then sued Thompson and Doe defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) violation of the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause and Due Process right to a fair trial, and (2) conspiracy to deprive Park of constitutional rights; the district court dismissed and Park appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thompson’s contact with Ayala constituted "substantial government interference" with a defense witness | Thompson’s statements were intimidation/misrepresentations intended to dissuade a cooperating witness from testifying | Thompson’s call was investigatory/benign, did not threaten or coerce, and merely informed Ayala of her rights | Court: Allegations plausibly plead intimidation and persuasive misconduct sufficient to allege substantial interference (at pleading stage) |
| Whether Thompson’s conduct causally caused Ayala’s refusal to testify | Ayala had committed to testify, ceased cooperation immediately after Thompson’s call and later invoked Fifth; Thompson’s call foreseeably contributed to Ayala’s unavailability | Multiple intervening actors (DA, Ayala’s counsel, judge) broke any causal chain; Thompson’s call alone insufficient | Court: Complaint sufficiently pleads a causal connection (for Rule 12(b)(6)) given timing and totality of allegations |
| Whether Ayala’s testimony was material and favorable despite Park’s acquittal | Ayala’s testimony would have supported a third-party culpability defense and cast doubt on prosecution evidence; acquittal does not erase the constitutional injury | Because Park was acquitted, any suppression was immaterial; acquittal bars § 1983 claim | Court: Acquittal does not bar a § 1983 claim (Haupt controlling); testimony plausibly material because it would have supported the principal defense and cast doubt on government case |
| Whether conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights was plausibly alleged | Facts (timing, contacts with El Segundo PD, charges filed shortly after) support an agreement to render Ayala unavailable; pleading on information and belief permissible when facts are within defendants’ control | Allegations are speculative, parallel conduct is insufficient to plead an agreement | Court: Conspiracy allegations are plausible under Twombly/Iqbal given facts and information-and-belief pleading; claim survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Compulsory Process Clause protects right to obtain witnesses in defendant’s favor)
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (government conduct that "drives a witness off the stand" violates due process)
- United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (defendant must plausibly show witness testimony would be material and favorable)
- Haupt v. Dillard, 17 F.3d 285 (9th Cir. 1994) (acquittal does not bar § 1983 claim for due process violations in underlying criminal proceedings)
- Ayala v. Chappell, 829 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (substantial interference with defense witnesses by detectives can state constitutional claim)
- United States v. Juan, 704 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2013) (analysis of compulsory process and due process overlap; causation and materiality inquiries)
- Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504 (9th Cir. 1994) (warning that officials informing witnesses of rights may create abuses and affect admissibility)
- United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1984) (law enforcement contact with potential witnesses is permissible when investigatory but can cross line into misconduct)
- United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (intimidation/harassment of witnesses constitutes undue prosecutorial interference)