William Hurt v. Matthew Wise
880 F.3d 831
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- In June 2012 Marcus Golike’s body was found in the Ohio River; autopsy indicated fractured hyoid and rib consistent with strangulation, but Golike had prior suicide threats and schizophrenia.
- Evansville and Kentucky State Police detectives interrogated three Hurt siblings: William (18), Deadra (19), and Andrea (16). William and Deadra each gave taped statements that matched officer-supplied details; Andrea was arrested based on those statements but not ultimately charged.
- William’s interrogation lasted ~4 hours (videoed); detectives repeatedly accused him of lying, fed facts, threatened a “fate worse than prison,” and he eventually implicated himself and others with details that were often inconsistent or impossible (e.g., alleged debit-card use when account had $0.08; body location discrepancies).
- Deadra’s ~2-hour interrogation followed similar patterns: repeated accusations, threats of decades in prison or hanging, threats that the family would go to jail, and officers feeding her William’s story until she repeated it; her alleged confession was later suppressed and charges dropped.
- William was prosecuted but acquitted on all counts after eight months in custody; Deadra was held four months before suppression and dismissal; Andrea was held seven days and released without charges.
- Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging false arrest, failure-to-intervene, conspiracy, fabrication of evidence (EPD defendants), and due process/Fifth Amendment claims for coerced confessions. Defendants appealed denial of qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified-immunity review/jurisdiction | Appellants must accept disputed facts; review limited to legal questions | Defendants ask court to reweigh video/interview inferences (Scott) | Appellate review limited; cannot reweigh disputed factual inferences from interrogation video; Scott limited to blatantly contradicted facts |
| Fourth Amendment false-arrest (probable cause) | Arrests lacked (arguable) probable cause because confessions were unreliable, some evidence fabricated, and suicide plausible | Arrests supported by confessions and follow-up investigation; at least arguable probable cause existed | Material factual disputes exist; denial of qualified immunity affirmed (cannot resolve probable-cause fact questions on interlocutory appeal) |
| Failure-to-intervene / conspiracy | Officers who observed or participated in coercive interrogations and fabrication failed to stop or agreed to violate rights | Defendants argue no underlying constitutional violation and some officers lacked opportunity to prevent arrests | Denial of qualified immunity affirmed as triable issues exist (Manuel re: continued detention; circumstantial evidence of agreement sufficient at this stage) |
| Due process / Fifth Amendment (involuntary confessions) | William and Deadra were psychologically coerced by threats and fact‑feeding; use of involuntary statements in proceedings violates self-incrimination and due process | Interrogations were non-custodial or voluntary; officers had no reason to know confessions were involuntary | Denial of qualified immunity affirmed for procedural (involuntary-confession) claim; coercive tactics and threats create triable issues; substantive-due-process theory dismissed |
| Fabrication of evidence (pretrial detention causation) | Fabricated police reports and false statements furthered prosecution and prolonged detention | Reports didn’t cause arrests or appear at trial, so no causal role in detention | Denial of qualified immunity mostly affirmed; but two officers (Arbaugh and Pagett) entitled to qualified immunity on Deadra’s fabricated-evidence claim because alleged conduct postdated her detention |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (defendants may appeal denial of qualified immunity on purely legal questions)
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (appellate review barred where genuinely disputed historical facts exist)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video may rebut version of events when it blatantly contradicts plaintiff’s account)
- Manuel v. City of Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (Fourth Amendment protects against continued detention without probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause assessed by totality; reliability/veracity critical)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires procedural safeguards)
- Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (use of involuntary confession violates Fifth Amendment)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness depends on totality of circumstances)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (police coercion required for involuntariness)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (recognition that psychological coercion can render confession involuntary)
- Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, 434 F.3d 1006 (confession is "used" if relied on at probable-cause hearing, bail hearing, or arraignment)
- Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (use of false evidence can support due-process-based claim)
- Dassey v. Dittmann, 877 F.3d 297 (discussion of voluntariness and false-confession analysis)