381 F. Supp. 3d 905
E.D. Mich.2019Background
- In September 2007 four people were killed in a Detroit home (Runyon Street). Vincent Smothers later admitted he and an accomplice committed the killings and described weapons and conduct consistent with the crime; Smothers was never charged for those four murders.
- Police (investigators Michael Russell and James Tolbert) interviewed 14-year-old Davontae Sanford. After multiple interviews Russell obtained a written confession and a diagram of the scene; Sanford later said the police suggested details and showed him photos and that Tolbert actually drew the scene sketch.
- Tolbert now admits he drew the bulk of the sketch and that he presented it as Sanford's work; Russell repeatedly represented to prosecutors and at the preliminary exam that the sketch and confession were Sanford's unaided work.
- Sanford pled guilty at a bench trial in 2008 to second-degree murder and firearm counts and was sentenced; he later sought relief after Smothers' confession came to light and the Michigan State Police investigated alleged police misconduct.
- In 2016 the parties stipulated to vacate and dismiss Sanford's conviction; Sanford filed this § 1983 suit alleging fabrication of evidence, coerced confession, and malicious prosecution (Brady and some other claims later abandoned).
- The court, viewing evidence in Sanford's favor for summary-judgment purposes, found fact disputes precluding summary judgment on fabrication (Fourteenth Amendment), coerced confession (Fifth Amendment), and malicious prosecution (Fourth Amendment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication of evidence | Tolbert fabricated the crime-scene sketch and Russell presented it as Sanford's unaided work; the fabricated sketch was material to prosecution | Qualified immunity; no clearly established law; absolute witness/testimonial immunity for related testimony | Denied summary judgment — fact questions on fabrication and defendants cannot hide behind testimonial immunity; right was clearly established |
| Coerced confession | Russell used coercive techniques (false evidence, promises of leniency, long interrogation of a 14‑year‑old with cognitive/mental-health vulnerabilities) that overbore Sanford's will | Qualified immunity; no controlling precedent in 2007 showing these combined tactics were unconstitutional | Denied summary judgment — disputed facts (including promises, false evidence, youth/impairments) preclude immunity at this stage |
| Malicious prosecution | False sketch and false statements materially influenced prosecutor's decision; Russell and Tolbert thus participated in the decision to prosecute | There was probable cause; defendants' statements were not part of the preliminary-exam record and they did not influence charging | Denied summary judgment — record shows Russell testified at prelim and prosecutor relied on file; fabricated evidence was material and could support malicious prosecution claim |
| Judicial estoppel / preclusion | Sanford’s prior convictions/plea should not bar his civil claims based on later-proven fabrications | Defendants assert estoppel and collateral estoppel over issues like voluntariness, literacy, sketch admissibility, probable cause, guilt | Denied — trial conviction vacated and earlier proceedings did not decide fabrication claims; estoppel inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 901 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2018) (summary-judgment standard and burdens)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (movant's burden in summary judgment)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (qualified immunity framework)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (objective qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (qualified immunity sequencing and discretion)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party in immunity context)
- Stemler v. City of Florence, 126 F.3d 856 (6th Cir. 1997) (clearly established right not to be convicted on fabricated evidence)
- Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (fabrication and materiality to probable cause; pretrial fabrication not covered by absolute immunity)
- Jacobs v. Alam, 915 F.3d 1028 (6th Cir. 2019) (fabricated evidence violates due process when it could affect the jury)
- Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 847 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2017) (officer-manufactured evidence deprives due process)