2014 Ohio 1426
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (representing ten estates of women murdered by Anthony Sowell and two surviving rape/assault victims) sued multiple defendants, including Cleveland assistant prosecutor Lorraine Coyne, alleging her failure to properly investigate and her decision not to charge Sowell after a December 8, 2008 assault contributed to subsequent murders.
- Facts alleged: a bleeding victim identified Sowell, police arrested him December 8, detectives met with Coyne on December 10, and Coyne concluded there was insufficient evidence and declined to prosecute; Sowell was released and later convicted in 2009 of multiple murders after victims’ remains were discovered.
- Coyne moved for judgment on the pleadings asserting prosecutorial immunity; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed claims against her with prejudice.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing Coyne performed investigative/administrative (non-advocatory) acts — failing to verify evidence, interview witnesses, consider criminal history, prematurely terminating investigation, and advising police to "straight-release" Sowell — so absolute immunity should not apply.
- The court reviewed de novo whether the complaints alleged non-advocatory acts that would overcome absolute prosecutorial immunity under the functional test and whether Ohio statutory provisions left any room to defeat common-law immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coyne is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for her conduct related to the Dec. 2008 incident | Coyne performed investigative/administrative acts (failed to investigate, terminated investigation, advised straight-release) and thus acted outside the advocatory functions protected by absolute immunity | Coyne reviewed detectives’ work and declined to prosecute — a core advocatory/quasi‑judicial decision entitled to absolute immunity | Court held Coyne’s actions, as pleaded, were advocatory (reviewing detectives’ investigation and deciding not to prosecute) and therefore protected by absolute immunity; judgment for Coyne affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (prosecutors entitled to absolute immunity for advocatory acts closely tied to the judicial phase)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (functional analysis: examine nature of function, not actor)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (distinguishes prosecutor’s evaluative/advocatory tasks from detective functions; investigative acts get only qualified immunity)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (prosecutor not absolutely immune for giving legal advice to police during investigation)
- Ireland v. Tunis, 113 F.3d 1435 (6th Cir.) (decision to file complaint or seek arrest warrant falls within absolute immunity)