William Avery v. City of Milwaukee
847 F.3d 433
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Maryetta "Mercedes" Griffin was raped and strangled; William Avery knew her and was later investigated.
- In 2004 Milwaukee detectives produced reports falsely claiming Avery confessed; those reports and three jailhouse informant statements were used at his 2005 murder trial, resulting in conviction and a 40-year sentence.
- The jailhouse informants (Randolph, Kent, Kimbrough) later alleged detectives coached, pressured, and induced them to implicate Avery; prosecutors admitted police reports but detectives withheld impeachment details about those interrogations.
- DNA later matched serial killer Walter Ellis to Griffin’s homicide; Avery’s conviction was vacated and he was released in 2010, then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (a) detectives fabricated a confession and manufactured informant statements (due process), (b) Brady violations for suppressing impeachment evidence, and (c) Monell liability against the City.
- A jury found two detectives and the City liable and awarded $1 million; the district judge then set aside the verdict, reasoning evidence-fabrication claims were impermissible or barred by immunity and that Brady did not apply because Avery knew the informants’ statements were false.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed: it reinstated the jury verdict on fabrication and Monell liability and revived the Brady claims, holding fabrication claims are actionable and Brady duties here were not excused by Avery’s knowledge of falsity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of due-process claim for fabricated evidence | Fabrication of a confession and informant statements violated Avery’s Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial | Claims are really coerced-confession claims or malicious-prosecution in disguise and thus not cognizable under due process | Court: Fabrication claims are actionable under Whitlock; jury verdict reinstated |
| Effect of state-law malicious-prosecution remedies (Parratt/Albright/Newsome) | Existence of state remedy doesn't defeat a federal due-process claim based on fabricated evidence that produced a wrongful conviction | State-law remedies bar a federal due-process malicious-prosecution-style claim | Court: Newsome/Albright inapplicable; state remedy does not preclude §1983 fabrication claims (Parratt exception doesn't apply) |
| Absolute immunity for detectives’ trial testimony | Detectors' fabrication—not their later testimony—caused the wrongful conviction; immunity shouldn't bar claims | Detectives’ trial testimony is absolutely immune; thus claims fail | Court: Absolute immunity does not absolve officers who fabricated evidence that foreseeably led to conviction; verdict stands |
| Brady duty to disclose impeachment evidence about informant interrogations | Detectives suppressed material impeachment evidence about how informants were induced; Brady violated | Brady duty drops out because Avery already knew the informants’ statements were false | Court: Rejected defendants’ position; Avery did not know the impeachment details and summary judgment for defendants on Brady was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012) (fabrication of evidence used to convict can violate due process)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 for constitutional violations tied to policy or custom)
- Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) (use of perjured testimony to secure conviction violates due process)
- Petty v. Chicago, 754 F.3d 416 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing coercion-related tactics from fabrication claims; coercion implicates Brady)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (prosecutor immune for prosecutorial acts but liable for investigative misconduct before probable cause)
- Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001) (discussing Albright/Parratt limits on constitutional malicious-prosecution claims)
- Gauger v. Hendle, 349 F.3d 354 (7th Cir. 2003) (Brady does not apply to information already known to defendant)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (materiality standard for Brady violations)
- Fields v. Wharrie (Fields II), 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014) (Brady and fabrication interplay; creator of defect responsible for later injury)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (absolute immunity for witnesses' in-court testimony does not shield pretrial fabrication that foreseeably causes conviction)