Philip Cannon v. Polk County
702 F. App'x 527
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Philip Scott Cannon was convicted in 2000 of a triple homicide; trial evidence included Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA), later discredited.
- In 2009 Cannon and the Oregon DOJ stipulated to vacate the conviction and remand for retrial; while preparing for retrial the DA could not locate original trial exhibits and dismissed the charges.
- Cannon and his sons sued law enforcement and prosecutors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oregon tort law alleging Brady violations, destruction of evidence (Trombetta/Youngblood), substantive due process violations, associational rights violations, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- Key contested items included CBLA bullet testing, a crime-scene video, a photo lineup, and other investigatory materials; defendants argued disclosure obligations were met or that conduct did not rise to constitutional or tortious levels.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of exculpatory evidence | Cannon: police/prosecutors withheld favorable reports, videos, photos | Defs: disclosed to DA or to Cannon in discovery; summaries satisfied disclosure obligations | No Brady violation — disclosure obligations met or material not shown exculpatory |
| Destruction/loss of evidence (Trombetta/Youngblood) | Loss of potentially useful evidence (video, lighter) prejudiced defense; shows bad faith | Defs: no bad faith in loss; evidence only potentially useful, not shown destroyed in bad faith | No violation — Cannon failed to show bad faith |
| Substantive due process (conscience-shocking conduct) | Various chain-of-custody and evidentiary errors deprived Cannon of fair process | Defs: errors were minor and not conscience-shocking | No substantive due process violation |
| Absolute immunity for prosecutor-directed testing | Cannon: sending bullets for now-discredited CBLA violated rights | Defs: Taylor acted at DA's direction in prosecutorial function | Absolute immunity applies; defendant protected |
| Familial associational rights | Cannon and sons: wrongful detention and interference with parent-child relationship | Defs: detention was lawful; conduct not shocking or offensive | No Fourteenth Amendment associational violation |
| Malicious prosecution & abuse of process (Oregon law) | Cannon: prosecution improper and motivated by malice/ulterior purpose | Defs: dismissal was for missing exhibits (not favorable termination); probable cause existed; no ulterior purpose | Malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims fail — termination not on merits, probable cause and no malice/ulterior purpose shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2003) (Brady disclosure principles applied)
- Amado v. Gonzalez, 758 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2014) (availability of material during discovery affects Brady claims)
- United States v. Winslow, 962 F.2d 845 (9th Cir. 1992) (summary disclosure may satisfy Brady)
- United States v. Van Brandy, 726 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1984) (summaries of files can satisfy Brady)
- Miller v. Vasquez, 868 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1989) (articulating necessity of bad faith for Youngblood claims)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due process claim for destruction of potentially useful evidence requires bad faith)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (constitutional duty to preserve evidentiary material depends on materiality and usefulness)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1993) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions evaluating evidence and preparing for trial)
- Nunez v. City of L.A., 147 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 1998) (standard for conscience-shocking conduct in substantive due process claims)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (framework for substantive due process and ordered liberty)
- Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406 (9th Cir. 2010) (parent-child associational rights require wrongful detention to state claim)
- Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2011) (associational-rights standard: conduct must shock the conscience)