Robert Stinson v. Raymond Rawson
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15772
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Robert Stinson was convicted in 1985 of a 1984 murder largely on forensic odontology testimony from Drs. Lowell Johnson and Raymond Rawson; there were no eyewitnesses or fingerprints linking him to the crime.
- Johnson initially identified bite-mark characteristics and prepared a sketch; detectives Gauger and Jackelen later interviewed Stinson, who had a missing/fractured front tooth, and prosecutors sought a second odontologist’s confirmation before charging Stinson.
- Johnson and Rawson each opined that Stinson’s dentition matched bite marks on the victim; Stinson was convicted and imprisoned for 23 years.
- Post-conviction reanalysis and DNA testing excluded Stinson and identified another perpetrator; Stinson’s conviction was vacated and charges dismissed.
- Stinson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) fabrication of expert opinion(s) by Johnson and Rawson and (2) Brady suppression of an agreement to fabricate, and asserted related conspiracy and failure-to-intervene claims against detective Gauger.
- The district court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motions on immunity grounds (qualified immunity and absolute immunity); this appeal addressed interlocutory reviewability and absolute-immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this court has jurisdiction to review denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment | Stinson: district court correctly found sufficient evidence to send fabrication and Brady claims to trial, so appeal would address legal application of qualified immunity to those facts | Defendants: ask appellate review of qualified-immunity denial as a legal question (argue facts as plaintiff presents them still do not show a violation of clearly established law) | No jurisdiction to review the defendants’ interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity because the defendants failed to accept the record and inferences in the light most favorable to Stinson and thus contested factual sufficiency (Johnson v. Jones bar applies) |
| Whether Johnson and Rawson are entitled to absolute immunity for testimony/preparation | Stinson: claims concern investigative conduct (not protected) leading to fabrication and suppression, so no absolute immunity | Johnson/Rawson: contended they were testifying witnesses entitled to absolute immunity | Denied: absolute immunity does not protect investigative acts (only trial/grand-jury testimony and protected preparation); claims target pretrial investigative conduct, so no absolute immunity |
| Whether the record sufficiently supports a jury inference of fabrication/intent to fabricate (for qualified immunity analysis) | Stinson: circumstantial evidence (pre-interview sketch, change in tooth identification after detectives saw Stinson, short/brief confirmation by Rawson, experts later finding methodology unsound) permits an inference of intentional fabrication and Brady suppression | Defendants: their briefs dispute key factual predicates (deny pre-interview meeting, blame ADA for contacting Rawson, assert honest mistake/good-faith expert opinion) | Not decided on the merits by this court — district court concluded there was sufficient evidence for trial, but appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review that factual-sufficiency determination under Johnson |
| Whether Gauger (detective) is liable / entitled to qualified immunity based on alleged solicitation/knowledge of fabricated opinions | Stinson: Gauger implicated by meetings, observations of Stinson’s teeth, and communications implying a desired result, so a jury could infer he knew of or solicited fabrication | Gauger: not a dentist; challenges sufficiency of evidence that he knew of fabrication or solicited it | Not resolved here — entitlement to qualified immunity raised factual disputes about Gauger’s knowledge and intent that are not reviewable on interlocutory appeal under Johnson |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (no interlocutory review of district-court rulings that only decide whether the pretrial record creates a genuine factual dispute)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (denial of absolute immunity is immediately appealable)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (appellate courts may resolve qualified-immunity appeals when the record indisputably forecloses the plaintiff’s version of events)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (clarifies limits of Johnson and confirms review when appeal raises legal question about reasonableness under clearly established law)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. recognizing suppression of fabricated evidence can violate due process)