Timothy Gantt v. City of Los Angeles
717 F.3d 702
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gantt and Smith were convicted of the August 19, 1992 murder of Kalpesh Vardhan in a Los Angeles parking garage.
- Rosemond, the sole eyewitness, recanted mid-retrial, leading to dismissal with prejudice and a retrial in the criminal case.
- During prior proceedings, Rosemond’s interrogation allegedly used coercive tactics; detectives allegedly threatened to charge him unless he testified.
- Kevin Shorts and Jose Cubias provided additional, weak circumstantial testimony linking Gantt and Smith to the crime; Shorts received a reward for testifying.
- In the later civil actions under §1983, the district court granted some defeats on immunity and Monell claims, and the jury ultimately found for defendants; the appellate panel reversed in part and remanded for a new trial on specified issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fabrication of evidence instruction error | Gantt/Smith asserted the court erred by misstating the culpability level for fabrication of evidence. | Defendants contend the instruction was correct or harmless. | Reversed; instructional error not harmless; remanded for new trial on fabrication of evidence claims. |
| Brady disclosure and impeachment evidence | Failure to instruct on Brady/Giglio evidence, particularly Rossmond’s prior robbery disclosure, prejudiced plaintiffs. | Brady instruction may be unnecessary; prosecutors/police may not be faulted for what was or wasn’t disclosed. | Remand; trial court should determine whether a Brady instruction is warranted at retrial. |
| Conspiracy instruction under 42 U.S.C. §1983 | Conspiracy theory applicable to §1983 claims; proper instruction needed. | Only §1985 instruction given; §1983 conspiracy instruction was erroneous. | Remand; give correct conspiracy instruction relevant to §1983 claims. |
| Remaining evidentiary and instructional errors | Other alleged errors were not harmless in light of reversible error on key issues. | Most errors harmless or unsupported by sufficient evidence. | Harmless for those issues; court retains limited remand focus on above issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir.2001 (en banc)) (establishes due process right not to be charged on basis of deliberately fabricated government evidence)
- Wilkinson v. Torres, 610 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.2010) (shocks-the-conscience standard varies by context)
- Tennison v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir.2009) (deliberate indifference may shock the conscience depending on context)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (Relevance to shocks-the-conscience standard in due process)
- Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942) (illustrates intentional fabrication concept in due process)
- Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir.2005) (standard for reviewing jury instructions and harmless-error analysis)
- Clem v. Lomeli, 566 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir.2009) (harmless error framework in civil trials)
- Yan Fang Du v. Allstate Ins. Co., 697 F.3d 753 (9th Cir.2012) (necessity of evidentiary foundation for jury instructions)
- Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 540 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence sufficiency for jury instructions)
- Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794 (9th Cir.2001) (standard for prejudicial error in civil cases)
- Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.2000) (review of jury instruction errors)
- Caballero v. City of Concord, 956 F.2d 204 (9th Cir.1992) (relevance to due process and jury instructions)