836 F.3d 978
8th Cir.2016Background
- In 2008 Zackary Stewart was convicted of murdering David Dulin; the Missouri Supreme Court later vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial; charges were dropped after another person confessed. Stewart then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Missouri law against Stone County, the County Sheriff, lead investigator Karl Wagner, prosecutor Matt Selby, and others.
- Central factual disputes: Alicia Kimberling gave inconsistent statements implicating different people; Wagner prepared a probable-cause statement that emphasized Kimberling’s incriminating remarks about Stewart and omitted earlier inconsistent remarks; Selby filed murder charges based on that statement.
- Separate issue: jailhouse informants Victor Parker and Coty Pollard testified at trial after interacting with Wagner and Selby; Stewart contends investigators instructed or encouraged the cellmates to elicit incriminating statements after Stewart invoked his right to counsel.
- District court denied summary judgment to Selby and Wagner on several § 1983 claims (fabrication/procurement of false testimony; Sixth Amendment jailhouse-informant claims) and allowed state-law and Brady-related claims to proceed; district granted summary judgment for the County and some officials.
- On interlocutory appeal Selby and Wagner challenge denial of qualified immunity (and Selby challenges absolute prosecutorial immunity) as to: (1) due-process/fabricated-evidence claim arising from the Kimberling statements; and (2) Sixth Amendment claim based on use of jailhouse informants. The Eighth Circuit reverses in part and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Selby/Wagner violated substantive due process by procuring fabricated testimony / creating probable cause from Kimberling’s statements | Stewart: prosecutors and investigator cherry-picked/invented Kimberling statements to create probable cause, violating due process | Selby/Wagner: arrest and prosecution were supported by (arguable) probable cause; Fourth Amendment governs probable-cause arrest claims; qualified immunity applies | Court: claim must be judged under Fourth Amendment (not substantive due process); Stewart failed to show violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment rights — denial of qualified immunity to Selby on this claim was error (reversed) |
| Whether Selby/Wagner violated Sixth Amendment by using jailhouse informants as agents to deliberately elicit incriminating statements after right to counsel attached | Stewart: Parker and Pollard were used as agents/"snitches" who elicited admissions after Stewart invoked counsel, so defendants violated Sixth Amendment and are liable under § 1983 | Selby/Wagner: they did not deliberately elicit; at most asked informants to listen; no clear precedent put them on notice; qualified immunity protects them | Court: disputed facts exist on elicitation, but no clearly established § 1983 rule made defendants’ conduct beyond debate; denial of qualified immunity reversed (immunity afforded) |
| Standard for mens rea required for non-prosecutor law-enforcement Brady liability | Stewart: investigators’ nondisclosure of favorable evidence violated Brady and supports § 1983 damages | Defendants: prosecutor’s disclosure duty is absolute, but liability for other officers requires proof of intent to deprive a fair trial | Court: district court must apply controlling Villasana standard (intent to deprive fair trial) rather than a vague "bad faith" standard on remand |
| Appellate jurisdiction / scope of review over other claims (conspiracy, state law, absolute immunity) | Stewart: broader claims should survive; plaintiff sought to litigate multiple § 1983 and state-law claims | Defendants: appeal limited to interlocutory questions of law about qualified immunity; other claims not properly before this court | Court: limited jurisdiction — reviews only those qualified-immunity and prosecutorial-immunity issues properly briefed; declines to decide other claims or state-law immunity interlocutorily |
Key Cases Cited
- Aaron v. Shelley, 624 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2010) (interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity limited to legal issues)
- Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, 64 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 1995) (limits on appellate review of pendent state-law claims)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Villasana v. Wilhoit, 368 F.3d 976 (8th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 damages for Brady violations by nonprosecutors require intent to deprive defendant of a fair trial)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard: protection unless clearly established rights violated)
- Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436 (1986) (Sixth Amendment: informant becomes agent only when instructed to obtain information; deliberate elicitation required)
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) (right to counsel applies after adversary proceedings have begun)
- Moore v. United States, 178 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 1999) (elements for Sixth Amendment claim based on informant testimony)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (Fourth Amendment governs unlawful arrest/prosecution claims)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986) (probable-cause arrest claims and qualified immunity principles)