Stevens v. Brown
564 F.Supp. 368, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16533 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While individual witnesses, including police officers, have absolute immunity from civil liability for their in-court testimony, they are not immune from liability under the Civil Rights Acts for conspiring to procure a criminal conviction through the use of false testimony.
Facts:
- In June 1976, a fire involving gasoline occurred at the residence shared by Byron J. Stevens and Amos Belk.
- Belk was severely burned in the fire and died approximately four weeks later.
- Stevens, who had no prior criminal record, maintained that Belk accidentally ignited the gasoline and that he had tried to extinguish the flames.
- Police investigating the fire, including officers Hayes, Richardson, and Sharpe, accused Stevens of intentionally setting Belk on fire.
- Before his death, Belk made a dying declaration to a doctor and later to Officer Sharpe, implicating Stevens in the fire.
- Based on this declaration and the officers' investigation, Stevens was tried and convicted of first-degree murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Byron J. Stevens was convicted of first-degree murder in the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, a state trial court, and was serving a life sentence.
- Stevens subsequently filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 in federal district court against police officers Brown, Hayes, Richardson, and Sharpe.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- The jury returned a verdict finding defendants Hayes, Richardson, and Sharpe liable for conspiring to violate Stevens' civil rights and awarded damages.
- The jury also found defendant Brown liable for the wrongful taking of Stevens' automobile and awarded damages, but not liable for civil rights violations.
- The defendants filed post-verdict motions seeking to set aside the jury's verdict against them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police officers who testify as witnesses in a criminal trial immune from civil liability under the Civil Rights Acts for an alleged conspiracy to procure a conviction by using false testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - McMillan, District Judge
No, police officers are not immune from civil liability for conspiring to procure a conviction using false testimony. The court distinguished this claim from one based on perjured testimony alone, for which witnesses have absolute immunity under Briscoe v. LaHue. The court reasoned that while immunity for testimony serves the public purpose of encouraging witnesses to speak freely, there is no public purpose served by protecting individuals who engage in a deliberate, pre-planned conspiracy to corrupt the judicial process by presenting false evidence. However, after establishing this legal principle, the court found that the plaintiff in this specific case had failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that the officers actually formed and carried out such a conspiracy, and therefore set aside the jury's verdict against them.
Analysis:
This case is significant for creating a potential exception to the absolute witness immunity established in Briscoe v. LaHue. It distinguishes the act of testifying from the separate, preceding act of conspiring to present false testimony, suggesting that the conspiracy itself is not protected conduct. This opens a narrow path for § 1983 plaintiffs to hold state actors accountable for subverting the judicial process, provided they can meet the high evidentiary burden of proving an actual agreement to commit perjury. The decision thus preserves the core of witness immunity while refusing to extend its protection to pre-trial conspiracies to corrupt justice.
