365 F. Supp. 3d 587
W.D. Pa.2019Background
- In 1991 Christine Siehl was found murdered; Kevin Siehl was arrested, convicted of first-degree murder in 1992, and spent ~25 years in prison; conviction vacated in 2016 and charges dismissed in 2016 after post-conviction discovery.
- Johnstown PD investigators (Cancelliere, Wagner) focused on Siehl despite other suspects and sought forensic support from PSP Trooper Merrill Brant and PSP forensic supervisor Scott Ermlick.
- Brant and Ermlick produced forensic reports (fingerprint timing/identification, blood on doorframe, and "presumptive" blood on Siehl’s shoes) later shown by post-conviction materials to be false or unsupported; Ermlick also had mid-trial notes contradicting his report.
- Prosecutors Tulowitzki and Lovette allegedly violated a trial court order by permitting Brant to observe a confidential defense expert examination, used (or threatened to use) that information to neutralize the defense expert, and failed to disclose mid-trial testing results that were favorable to Siehl.
- Ermlick consumed biological samples in non-DNA testing, leaving no material for DNA analysis; Cambria County is alleged to have lacked policies/protocols (including funding guidelines) for timely DNA testing.
- Plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution, fabrication/suppression of evidence, Brady/fair-trial violations, and municipal liability; motions to dismiss were filed by prosecutors, county, and forensic officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute immunity for prosecutors for violating court orders by invading defense expert confidentiality | Tulowitzki/Lovette disobeyed a court order and performed ministerial/administrative acts not protected by absolute immunity | Prosecutors claim absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions connected to the prosecution | Denied at pleading stage: alleged disobedience of court orders is non-advocative and not shielded by absolute immunity |
| Prosecutors' failure to disclose exculpatory mid-trial testing (Brady/Right to fair trial) | Siehl: prosecutors hid exculpatory test results and lied to court; duty to disclose was ministerial under the court order | Prosecutors contend advocacy functions and claim immunity/that actions were discretionary | Denied at pleading stage: alleged violations of court order to disclose transform duties into non-discretionary ones; plausible due-process/Brady-type claim survives |
| Municipal liability for Cambria County's failure to adopt DNA testing policies | Siehl: County knew DNA could exonerate/inculpate and deliberately failed to adopt protocols or funding rules, causing loss of evidence | County argues lack of notice or pattern to show deliberate indifference; insufficient Monell pleading | Denied as to motion: complaint plausibly alleges Monell claim based on deliberate indifference and causal link to loss of DNA evidence |
| Qualified immunity for forensic officers (Brant, Ermlick) re: fabrication/suppression, destruction/consumption of evidence, interference with defense | Siehl: officers knowingly or recklessly fabricated reports, concealed/exhausted biological samples, and intruded on defense confidentiality—violations of clearly established rights (due process, right to fair trial) | Officers argue mere erroneous opinions or mistakes and raise qualified immunity because law re: some police duties (e.g., Brady) did not directly bind officers in 1991 | Denied at pleading stage: allegations, if true, show constitutional violations and would have put reasonable officers on notice in 1991; qualified immunity not resolved on 12(b)(6) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for federal complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (two-step qualified immunity framework)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may decide which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (due process prohibits deliberate fabrication of evidence)
- Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (suppression of evidence violates due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (due-process violation for bad-faith failure to preserve potentially useful evidence)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (qualified immunity when reasonable officers could disagree)