Thomas Winslow v. Richard Smith
696 F.3d 716
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Beatrice, Nebraska murder (1985) and wrongful convictions of Taylor, Winslow, Dean, Gonzalez; DNA in 2008 matched an unrelated individual (Bruce Smith) and pardons followed.
- Plaintiffs filed 42 U.S.C. §1983 actions against the county prosecutor, sheriff’s department investigators, and Gage County for due process violations in investigation and coerced pleas.
- District court granted summary judgment on immunity grounds; plaintiff claims survive on recklessness/false evidence theories; district court denied others.
- Plaintiffs allege investigators coached witnesses and manufactured evidence to fit a narrative, and that pleas were obtained through coercion.
- Court of appeals reverses in part: reinstates claims for reckless investigation and manufactured evidence; affirms immunity for the prosecutor on coerced-plea claim; remands for further proceedings, including municipal liability; evidentiary rulings deemed moot to the extent they concern non-reversed issues.
- DNA testing and pardons are procedural backdrop; facts hinge on investigators’ conduct during post-arrest proceedings and plea negotiations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the investigation violated due process by recklessly seeking conviction | Taylor et al. allege reckless investigation and coached testimony | Defendants contend no clearly established recklessness; proper immunity analysis | Yes; sufficient evidence to support recklessness and false-evidence claims |
| Whether defendants coerced plaintiffs into pleading guilty | Pleadings show coercive tactics to secure pleas | Plea coercion not shown; voluntary under law | Partially: district court’s coercion ruling affirmed for that aspect; no reversible error on coercion finding |
| Whether the right to be free from reckless investigation was clearly established in 1989 | Reckless investigation violated clearly established rights | Right not clearly established at the time | Yes; right to be free from recklessness established in 1986 and applied in 1989 |
| Whether Smith is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity | N/A | Smith’s pre-charge actions not immune; post-charge actions immune | Affirmed absolute immunity for charging-related actions |
| Whether municipal liability was properly reinstated given surviving §1983 claims against individuals | Surviving individual claims support municipal liability | No underlying violation found | Reinstated on remand; municipal liability viable with revised record |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (use of false evidence violates due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Wilson v. Lawrence County, 260 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2001) (right to fair criminal proceedings; recklessness standard acknowledged)
- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940) (coercion and tainting of pleas/confessions potential to violate due process)
- Hayden v. Nevada County, 664 F.3d 770 (8th Cir. 2012) (coercion/plea tainting; context for §1983 liability)
- Walace v. Turner, 695 F.2d 545 (11th Cir. 1983) (due process in plea context (reference point for innocence claims))
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (prosecutor immunity when filing charging documents)
- Brodrnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1996) (prosecutor immunity in related investigative actions)
- Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638 (8th Cir. 2002) (fabrication/ignoring exculpatory evidence; not immunity bar)