Kenneth McPherson; Eric Simmons v. Detective Robert Patton; Detective Frank Barlow

Summary

The Fourth Circuit reviewed a summary judgment ruling in a civil-rights action brought by Kenneth McPherson and Eric Simmons against detectives Robert Patton and Frank Barlow. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by excluding deceased witness Marcus King’s prior trial testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), because the prosecutor and the detectives’ counsel had sufficiently similar motives to examine King regarding alleged fabrication of evidence. The court also found a triable issue on the plaintiffs’ fabrication claim, affirmed the rejection of their suppression claim, vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. King's prior state-trial testimony was admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) because, after King recanted his recorded statement and accused the detectives of coercing him to lie, the prosecutor had a substantially similar motive to develop testimony concerning the alleged fabrication and the integrity of the interrogation as defense counsel would have in the civil action.
2. The brothers presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue on whether the detectives deliberately or recklessly fabricated evidence by coercing King into giving a false inculpatory statement, and summary judgment on the fabrication claim was improper.
3. The detectives were entitled to summary judgment on the suppression claim because the undisclosed notes concerning Martin and Jackson did not create a reasonable probability of a different result on the brothers' conspiracy convictions and therefore were not material.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Marcus King's prior state-trial testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) because the prosecutor's motive in examining King at the criminal trial was similar to the motive defense counsel would have in the civil action.
2. Whether King's testimony and related circumstantial evidence created a genuine issue of material fact on the brothers' § 1983 fabrication-of-evidence claim.
3. Whether the detectives were entitled to summary judgment on the § 1983 suppression-of-exculpatory-evidence claim concerning handwritten notes about eyewitnesses Martin and Jackson.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded