Dennis Patrick Brown v. Nace Jerry Miller
519 F.3d 231 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A government laboratory technician who deliberately fabricates evidence by creating a misleading and scientifically inaccurate serology report or who conceals exculpatory evidence violates a criminal defendant’s clearly established due process rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Facts:
- In 1984, Jane Doe was raped in her home in Covington, Louisiana, and provided physical evidence to the police.
- Dennis Patrick Brown was identified by Doe in a police lineup where he was participating as a 'fill-in.'
- Police obtained blood, hair, and saliva samples from Brown and sent them to the state crime lab with a note stating he had been 'identified via line-up.'
- Nace Jerry Miller, a lab technician, performed an ABO blood test on the samples, which revealed the presence of an H antigen, a result consistent with Brown but also with several other scenarios.
- Miller gave verbal confirmation of a 'positive match' to an investigating officer, leading to Brown's arrest.
- Miller later submitted a written report and testified at trial that Brown was within the 46.5% of the male population who could have been the semen donor, conclusions Brown alleged were scientifically inaccurate and misleading.
- Brown alleged that Miller either intentionally failed to conduct additional, commonly used tests that would have excluded him, or conducted those tests, found they were exculpatory, and concealed the results.
- In 2003, DNA testing of the original evidence proved Brown could not have been the donor, and he was released from prison after serving 20 years of a life sentence.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis Patrick Brown sued Nace Jerry Miller and others in federal district court, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) and various state law torts.
- Miller filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Brown failed to state a claim and that he was entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court ordered Brown to file a reply brief pleading specific facts to overcome the qualified immunity defense.
- After Brown complied, the district court denied Miller's motion to dismiss.
- Miller filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging the district court's denial of qualified immunity.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a government crime lab technician who allegedly creates a scientifically inaccurate and misleading serology report or conceals exculpatory test results violate a criminal defendant's clearly established due process rights, thereby precluding the technician from asserting a qualified immunity defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Owen, Circuit Judge
Yes, a government lab technician who deliberately creates a misleading and scientifically inaccurate report or conceals exculpatory evidence violates a criminal defendant's clearly established due process rights and is not entitled to qualified immunity. The court applies a two-step qualified immunity analysis, first determining if a constitutional right was violated and second, if that right was clearly established at the time. Regarding the claim of fabricated evidence, the court holds that a deliberately false or scientifically inaccurate report is equivalent to any other fabricated evidence created by investigators. This violates a defendant's due process rights, a principle the court finds was well-settled long before 1984. Regarding the claim of concealed evidence, the court cites Brady v. Maryland to affirm that the state's failure to disclose exculpatory evidence violates a defendant's right to a fair trial. This duty extends to police officers and other state officials, including a crime lab technician, and was also clearly established by 1984. Therefore, a reasonable laboratory technician at the time would have understood that either fabricating evidence or suppressing exculpatory results was unlawful, precluding the use of qualified immunity as a defense.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that qualified immunity is not a shield for government officials, including scientific experts, who engage in deliberate, bad-faith misconduct that subverts the judicial process. It clarifies that the constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose exculpatory evidence extends to forensic technicians, not just prosecutors or police investigators. By holding that the right to be free from fabricated evidence was clearly established well before the events of this case, the court strengthens the legal avenues for wrongfully convicted individuals to seek redress against forensic experts whose actions contribute to a miscarriage of justice.
Unlock the full brief for Dennis Patrick Brown v. Nace Jerry Miller