Levon Brooks v. Steven Hayne, 860 F.3d 819

Background

In the early 1990s Levon Brooks and Kennedy Brewer were convicted of separate murders of three-year-old girls based in part on forensic odontologists’ testimony identifying alleged bite marks. Both convictions were later vacated after Justin Albert Johnson confessed and DNA excluded the defendants. State prosecutions were declined or dismissed.
Brooks and Brewer sued Dr. Steven Hayne (a pathologist) and Dr. Michael West (a forensic odontologist) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due-process violations from fabrication or knowingly false presentation of bite-mark evidence by government-retained experts.
The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (absolute immunity for trial testimony and qualified immunity for pretrial reports) and dismissed remaining federal claims as time-barred in part; the Fifth Circuit consolidated Brooks’ and Brewer’s appeals.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit assumed—for purposes of argument—that claims were timely but resolved the cases on immunity grounds.
The central factual dispute: plaintiffs presented expert criticism, evidence of frequent bite-mark identifications by the defendants, a prior incident where a defense expert alleged West altered tissue to make a match, and alleged failures to biopsy or produce exculpatory biopsy results (Hayne). Plaintiffs argued this evidence supports intentional fabrication or reckless disregard.
The court found the record showed, at most, negligence or gross negligence in forensic work, not sufficient circumstantial evidence of deliberate fabrication; therefore qualified immunity applied and summary judgment was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are private forensic consultants entitled to qualified immunity when performing work for the state?	Plaintiffs argued consultants should not get immunity akin to public employees.	Defendants argued their investigative role is a core government function and they should have immunity.	Consultants performing investigative functions are entitled to assert qualified immunity.
Did defendants violate clearly established due-process rights by fabricating or knowingly presenting false forensic evidence?	Plaintiffs argued circumstantial evidence (expert critiques, frequency of positive identifications, prior alleged misconduct, biopsy irregularities) supports deliberate fabrication or recklessness.	Defendants argued their methods reflected then-accepted forensic odontology and disagreements show error, not fabrication.	Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine factual dispute of intentional fabrication or knowing falsity; evidence showed at most negligence.
Was qualified immunity defeated by recklessness or gross negligence in producing scientific evidence?	Plaintiffs relied on cases suggesting recklessness may defeat immunity and argued defendants were reckless.	Defendants maintained even grossly negligent errors do not forfeit qualified immunity absent knowing or plainly incompetent conduct.	Court held negligence/gross negligence insufficient to defeat qualified immunity; did not decide whether recklessness alone would suffice.
Did Hayne conceal or fail to perform biopsies of alleged bite marks (Br ewer) sufficient to show a due-process violation?	Brewer pointed to an autopsy form indicating biopsies and to a prior biopsy in Brooks showing no hemorrhage, arguing suppression or deliberate omission.	Hayne denied recall or examination of such biopsies and argued the record does not show deliberate concealment.	The autopsy form and biopsy evidence, absent more, only support negligence; no reasonable inference of deliberate withholding.

Key Cases Cited

Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012) (private contractors performing government functions may be entitled to immunity)
Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997) (narrow denial of immunity to private prison guards informs immunity analysis)
Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (summary-judgment standards require viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2008) (qualified immunity framework in fabricated-evidence context)
Campbell v. City of San Antonio, 43 F.3d 973 (5th Cir. 1995) (negligent acts of state officials do not implicate the Due Process Clause)