Background
In nineteen ninety-five, a Maryland jury convicted Kenneth McPherson and Eric Simmons of conspiring to murder Anthony Wooden. Over two decades later, a state court vacated their convictions after the State’s Conviction Integrity Unit filed a petition for a writ of actual innocence. The brothers then sued the investigating detectives in federal court under Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code, alleging fabrication and suppression of evidence. The district court granted summary judgment to the detectives, excluding the deceased witness’s trial testimony as inadmissible hearsay and dismissing the claims as speculative.
The court’s reasoning
The Fourth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Marcus King, a deceased witness who recanted his trial testimony and alleged police coercion. The court found that the prosecutor in the original criminal trial had a similar motive to the current defendants to question King about the alleged fabrication, satisfying Federal Rule of Evidence eight hundred four B one. With King’s testimony admitted, the court found a triable issue of fact regarding the fabrication claim, as the brothers alleged the detectives coerced King into giving false testimony. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suppression claim, concluding that the undisclosed witness notes did not create a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the brothers of conspiracy to murder.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded for further proceedings, allowing a jury to decide whether the detectives fabricated evidence that led to the brothers’ incarceration. The ruling clarifies that prior criminal trial testimony may be admissible in subsequent civil cases when the motives for questioning a witness are substantially similar.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download