# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 17 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es L. Dean; Loi s P. Whi te , as Pe rs on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Jo se ph

W hi te , dec eas ed ; Kat hl een A. Gon zal ez; Tho m as W . W in sl ow; Ada J oa nn Tay lo r; Deb ra Sh el do n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Co un ty of Gag e, Neb ras ka , a Nebr as ka po li ti cal su bd iv is io n; Bu rd et te Sear cey, Dep ., in hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Way ne R. Pri ce, Ph D., in hi s o ffi ci al

an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Ryan L. Tim m erm an , Pers on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he

Est at e o f Je rry

O. DeW it t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

Ri ch ard T. Sm it h, i n h is off ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Ger al d Lam ki n, Dep ., in

hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Gag e Co un ty A tt or ne y ’s Offic e, a Neb ras ka

po li ti cal su bd iv is io n; Gag e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, a Neb ras ka po li ti cal su bd iv is io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 17 73

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Ja m es L. Dean; Loi s P. Whi te , as Pe rs on al Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Jo se ph

W hi te , dec eas ed ; Kat hl een A. Gon zal ez; Tho m as W . W in sl ow; Ada J oa nn Tay lo r; Deb ra Sh el do n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll eesv.

Co un ty of Gag e, Neb ras ka , a Nebr as ka po li ti cal su bd iv is io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t

Bu rd et te Sear cey, Dep ., in hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Way ne R. Pri ce, Ph D., in hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Ryan L. Tim m erm an , Pers on al

Rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Je rry O. DeW it t

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el la nt

s

Ri ch ard T. Sm it h, i n h is off ic ia l an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Ger al d Lam ki n, Dep ., in

hi s o ffi ci al an d i nd iv id ua l ca pa ci ti es ; Gag e Co un ty A tt or ne y ’s Offic e, a Neb ras ka

po li ti cal su bd iv is io n; Gag e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, a Neb ras ka po li ti cal su bd iv is io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 17 , 20 15
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 7, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

DNA ev id en ce ex on erat ed Jo se ph E. W hi te an d th e fiv e ot he r pl ai nt iff s of rap e

an d m ur de r. They sue d Gag e Co un ty and th e of fic ers in vo lv ed in th ei r cas e. Afte r

an ap pe al fro m su m

m ary ju d g m en t an d a m is tri al on rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t

di sm is se d pl ai nt iff

s’ co ns pi racy c l a im an d al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty. The

-2

-di st ric t co ur t de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y to th e of

fic ers

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28

U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t rev ers es an d rem an ds th e di sm is sa l, an d affi rm s th e de ni al

of qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

I.

In 19 89

, Jo se ph W hi te was co nv ic te d fo r th e rap e an d m ur de r of Hele n W il so n.

The pr os ecu ti on us ed te st im on y an d co nf es si on s fro m W hi te ’s co -d efen da nt s— Ada

Jo Ann Tay lo r, Tho m as W

. W in sl ow, Ja m es L. Dean

, Ka t h l e e n A. Gon zal ez, an d

Deb ra S h e l d e n

— a l l of who m pl ed gu il ty to rel at ed ch arg es

. Afte r DNA te st in g in

2 0 08 , a ll co nv ic ti on s were pa rd on ed or ov ert ur ne d. Pl ai nt iff s in di vi du al ly fi le d 4 2

U.S.C. §§ 19 83 an d 19 85 cl ai m s ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty, sh eri ff Jerry O. DeWitt (an d

hi s em pl oyees Dr. W ay ne R. Pri ce an d Bu rd et te Sear cey), an d co u n t y a t t o rn ey

Ri ch ard T. Sm it h, al le gi ng Fi fth an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t du e pr oc es s vi ol at io ns

. Pl ai nt iff s cl ai m ed of

fic ers le d a reck le ss in ve st ig at io n, m an uf act ur ed fal se ev id en ce,

co ns pi red to m an uf

act ur e ev id en ce, an d c oe rced tes ti m on y . On two earl ie r ap pe al s

fro m se pa rat e su m

m ary jud gm en ts

, th is co ur t de te rm in ed : “ ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t to

su pp or t Pl ai nt iff

s’ cl ai m s th at th ei r rig ht s to fai r cri m in al pr oc eed in gs were vi ol at ed

as th e res ul t of a reck le ss in ve st ig at io n an d Defen da nt s’ m an uf act ur i n g of fal se

ev id en ce”; ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co ns pi racy cl ai m ; ev id en ce was no t

su ffi ci en t t o s u p p or t a co erci on cl ai m ; m em be rs of th e sh eri ff’s of

fic e were no t

pr ot ect ed by qu al ifi ed im m un it y ; an d th e co un ty at to rn ey was pr ot ect ed by ab so lu te

im mu n i t y. Wi

ns lo w v. Sm it

h

, 69 6 F.3 d 71 6, 72 1, 74 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (rev ers in g

su m m ary jud gm en t on qu al ifi ed im m un it y an d rei ns ta ti ng cl ai m s ag a i n s t Gag e

Co un ty, affi rm in g di sm is sa l of co erci on cl ai m , an d affi r mi ng di sm is sa l of cl ai m s

ag ai ns t co un ty at to rn ey Sm it h ba se d o n a bs ol ut e pr os ecu to ria l im m un it y ); Whi te v.

Sm it h

, 69 6 F.3 d 74 0, 74 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (aff irming de ni al of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , ho ld in g s uf

fic ie nt ev id en ce ex is te d t o s up po rt c on sp ira cy cla im ).

-3

-Tria l of th e c o n s o l id at ed cl ai m s be ga n Ja nu ary 6, 20 14

. At th e cl os e of

pl ai nt iff s’ ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e Gag e Co un ty an d th e of fic ers ’ Ru le

50 (a)( 1) m ot io n, di sm is si ng th e co ns pi racy cl ai m ag ai ns t al l pa rti es an d al l c l a i m s

ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty. It de ni ed th e of fic ers ’ Ru le 50 (a)( 2) m ot i o n f o r qu al ifi ed

im m un it y on th e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s of m an uf act ur in g ev id en ce an d co nd uc ti ng a

reck le s s i n v e st ig at io n. Afte r th ree da y s of jury de li be rat io n wit h no ve rd ic t, th e

di st ric t co ur t de cl ared a m is tri al an d or de red a ne w tri al

. One m on th la te r, th e di st ric t

co ur t cert ifi ed it s Ru le 50 (a)( 1) or de r un de r Ru le 54 (b ) to au th or iz e an ap pe al

. It al so

de ni ed th e of

fic ers ’ ren ewed m ot io n fo r qu al ifi ed im m un it y , whi ch th ey cro ss -ap pe al

.

II.

The of fic ers cl ai m th ey are en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. “ [A] di st ric t co ur t’s

de ni al of a cl ai m of qu al ifi ed im m un it y , to th e ex te nt th at it tu rn s on an is su e of la w,

is an ap pe al ab le ‘fina l de ci si on ’ w i t h i n th e m ean in g of 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

no twi th st an di ng th e ab se nc e of a fin al jud gm en t.” Mi tc hel l v. Fo rs yt h

, 47 2 U.S. 51 1,

53 0 (1 98 5)

.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of a mo t i o n fo r jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w de no vo , “ u s i n g t h e sa m e st an da rd s as th e di st ric t co ur t.” Luck er t v.

Dod ge Cnt y. , 68 4 F.3 d 80 8, 81 6- 17 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (rev ie win g den ia l of Rul e 50 (b )

m ot io n for qu al ifi ed im m un it y ). Thi s cou rt “ m

us t draw al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in

fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty wit ho ut m ak in g cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts or weig hi ng th e

ev id en ce.” Phil

li ps v. Co ll in gs , 25 6 F.3 d 84 3, 84 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (rev ie win g de ni al

of Ru le 50 (b ) m ot io n fo r qu al ifi ed im m un it y ).

To ov erco m e qu al ifi ed im m un it y , pl ai nt iff

s m us t de m on st rat e bo th th a t “ (1 )

th ere was a de pr iv at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y rig ht

, an d ( 2 ) t h e rig ht was

cl earl y es ta bl is he d at th e ti m e of th e de pr iv at io n.” Par ke r v. Cha rd , 77 7 F .3d 97 7,

98 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Si nc e th is co ur t pr ev io us ly d e n i e d q u a l ifi ed im m un it y fo r th e

-4

-of

fic ers as a m at te r of la w, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t co ns id er a Ru le 50 m ot io n on

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y un le ss su bs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce was pr od uc ed at tr ia l. Se e,

e.g

. , Ker m an v. Ci ty of

New Y or k

, 37 4 F.3 d 93

, 11 0 (2 d Ci r. 20 04 ) (ap pl y in g la w-o fth e-ca se do ct rin e in ap pe al fro m Ru le 50 qu al ifi ed im m un it y de ci si on ); Ola de in de v.

Ci ty of Bi rm in gh am , 23 0 F.3 d 12 75

, 12 88 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 00 ) (s am e). Se e ge ne ra ll y

Lit tl e Ea r t h o f t h e U ni te d Tri be s, In c. v. U.S. Dep ’t of Ho us

. & Urb an Dev.

, 80 7

F

. 2d 14 33

, 14 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ) (“ [W] e wil l reco ns id er a pr ev io us ly de ci de d i s s u e

on ly if su bs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce is su bs eq ue nt ly in tro du ced or th e de ci si on is

cl earl y erro ne ou s an d wo rk s m an ife st in jus ti ce.”)

.

The of fic ers arg ue th at th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at tri al va rie s gr eat ly fro m th at

id en ti fie d at su m

m ary jud gm en t. Res ol vi ng th e ap pe al fro m su m m ary jud gm en t, th is

co ur t pr ev io us ly st at ed

, “ Ano th er tro ub li ng pi ece of ev id en ce is th at Pri ce of fere d to

se rv e as Dean ’s th erap is t wit ho ut in it ia ll y in fo rm in g Dean of hi s ro le as a la w

en fo rcem en t of

fic er. Pri ce th en to ld Dean th at hi s po lygrap h res ul ts in di cat ed he was

rep res si ng m em or ie s of th e cri m e.” Whi te , 6 96 F.3 d at 75 5. The o f f i c e r s cl ai m , a t

tri al

, th ey sh owe d th is was un tru e. Howev er, th e reco rd th e of fic ers ci te sh ows on ly

th at Pri ce ha d pr ev io us ly to ld Dean ’s at to rn ey th at he was a ps y ch ol og is t fo r th e st at e

an d hi s co nv ers at io ns wit h Dean wou ld no t be co nf id en ti al

. Pri ce m et wit h Dean in

hi s rol e as “ de pu ty sh eri ff.” Pri ce to ld Dean he was a po li ce ps y ch ol og is t bu t nev er

e xp la in ed hi s ro le to Dean or in fo rm ed Dean th at he was no t act in g a s h i s

ps y ch ol og is t. Afte r m eet in g wit h Dean se ve ral ti m es , Pri ce to ld Dean th at he “ fai le d”

hi s po lygrap h te st an d reco m m en de d th erap y

. Pri ce reco rd ed hi s be li ef th at Dean was

pr es en t at th e cri m e sc en e an d was rep res si ng m em or y

. Thi s sl ig ht va ria nc e do es no t

a l l ev ia te th is co ur t’s pr ev io us co nc ern s or ov erco m e th e va st am ou nt of tro u b l i n g

ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l.

The of f i cers al so cl ai m th at “ th e te st im on y by th e at to rn ey s who rep res en te d

Dean

, Sh el de n, an d Tay lo r al l in di cat ed th at th ey were ne ve r in fo rm ed by th ei r cl ie nt s

th at th e of fic ers were do in g an y th in g th at wou ld am ou nt to co erci on or th at th ey were

-5

-be in g m is tre at ed by th e of fic ers .” Thi s co ur t pr ev io us ly affi rm ed th e di sm is sa l of th e

co erci on cl ai m , a nd th e cl ai m is no t at is su e in th is a p p e al

. Se e Wi ns lo w , 6 96 F.3 d

at 73 8. The tri al te st im on y do es no t su pp or t th e of fic er s ’ e n t it le m en t to qu al ifi ed

im m un it y

. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de ni ed th e re n e w e d R u l e 50 m ot io n fo r

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

.

III.

A.

Befo re ad dr es si ng th e co ns pi racy cl ai m an d cl ai m s ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty, th is

co ur t is ob li ga te d to in de pe nd en tl y co ns id er its juri sd ic ti on

. Outd oo r C ent ., Inc. v.

Gre at Lod ge .co m , In c. , 64 3 F.3 d 11 15

, 11 18 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). It is a ge ne ral ru le th at

on ly or de rs th at di sp os e of al l clai m s are fina l and ap pe al ab le

. Wi ll ia m s v. Cnt

y. of

Dak ot a, Neb

. , 68 7 F .3d 10 64 , 10 67 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

“ Ru l e 5 4 (b ) crea te s a well -es ta bl is he d ex cep ti on to th is ru le by al lo win g a

di st ric t co ur t to en te r a fin al jud gm en t on so m e bu t no t al l of th e cl ai m s in a la wsu it .”

Id

. Ru le 54 (b ) st at es :

W he n an act io n pr es en ts m or e th an on e cl ai m fo r r e l ie f—wh et he r as a cl ai m , co un te rcl ai m , cro ss cl ai m , or th ird -p art y cl ai m —o r whe n m

ul ti pl e

pa rti es are in vo lv ed

, th e co ur t m ay di rect en try of a fin al jud gm en t as to

on e or m or e, bu t fewer th an al l, cl ai m s or p a r ti es on ly if th e co ur t

ex pr es sl y de te rm in es th at th ere is no jus t re as on for de la y

. Oth erwi se ,

an y or de r or ot he r de ci si on , ho wev er de si gn at ed

, th at ad jud ic at es fewer
th an a l l t h e cl ai m s or th e rig ht s an d li ab il it ie s of fewer th an al l th e

pa rti es do es no t en d th e act io n as to an y of th e cl ai m s or pa rti es an d m ay be rev is ed at an y ti m e be fo re th e en try of a jud gm en t ad jud ic at in g al l th e cl ai m s an d a ll th e p art ie s’ rig ht s an d l ia bi li ti es

.

-6

-A di st ric t co ur t co ns id eri ng Ru le 54 (b ) cert ifi cat io n “ m us t fir st de te rm in e th at

it is de al in g wit h a ‘fina l jud gm en t’” th at di sp os es of a cl ai m

. Cur ti ss -Wr ig ht Co rp

.

v. Gen. El

ec. Co

. , 44 6 U.S. 1, 7 (1 98 0)

. Seco nd

, “ [i]n de t e r mi n i n g th at th ere is no jus t reas on fo r de la y , th e di st ric t co ur t m us t co ns id er bo th th e eq ui ti es of th e si tu at io n

an d jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti ve in te res ts

, pa rti cu la rly th e in te res t in pr ev en ti ng pi ecemeal

ap pe al s.” Wi ll

ia m s , 68 7 F.3 d at 10 67 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ), qu ot in g

Cur ti ss -Wr ig ht , 44 6 U.S. at 7.

In te rlo cu to ry ap pe al s are “ ge ne ral ly di sf av or ed ” an d “ on ly th e sp eci al cas e

. .

. warra nt s an im m ed ia te ap pe al fro m a p a r t i a l res ol ut io n of th e la wsu it .” Cl ar k v.

Ba ka

, 59 3 F.3 d 71 2, 71 4- 15 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m ). Se e Ha yd en v. McDo na ld

, 71 9 F.2 d 26 6, 26 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 83 ) (p er cu ria m ) (li st in g rel ev an t fact or s in rev ie win g

Ru le 54 (b ) cert ifi cat io ns ). Thi s co ur t m us t “ sc ru ti ni ze th e di st ric t co ur t’s ev al ua ti on

of su ch fact or s as th e in te rrel at io ns hi p of th e cl ai m s so a s t o p r e v en t pi ecemeal

ap pe al s in cas es whi ch sh ou ld be rev ie wed on ly as si ng le un it s.” Cur ti ss -Wr ig ht

, 44 6

U.S. at 10 ; Outd

oo r Cent

. , 64 3 F.3 d at 11 19

. W he re each cl ai m “ req ui res fam il ia rit y

wit h th e sa m e nu cl eu s of fact s an d in vo lv es an al y si s of si m il ar le ga l is su es , th e cl ai m s

sh ou ld be res ol ve d in a si ng le ap pe al .” Outd oo r Cent

. , 64 3 F.3d at 11 19 ; Ha

yd en , 71 9 F.2 d at 27 0 (d is co ur ag in g cert ifi cat io n whe n cl ai m s de al “ wit h es se nt ia ll y on e se t

of fact s, wi t h w h ic h th is co ur t wou ld ne ed to refa m il ia riz e it se lf on su bs eq ue nt

ap pe al s” ). Se e ge ne ra ll

y Sp ie ge l v. Trus te es of Tuft

s Co ll

. , 84 3 F.2 d 38

, 45 (1 st Ci r.

19 88 ) (“ A si m il ari t y o f ei th er le ga l or fact ua l is su es (o r bo th ) m il it at es st ro ng ly

ag ai ns t in vo cat io n of Ru le 54 (b ).” (ci ti ng So lo m on v. Aet na Life In s. Co

. , 78 2 F.2 d

58

, 62 (6 th Ci r. 19 86 ) an d Mo rr is on -Knu ds en Co

. v. Ar cher

, 65 5 F.2 d 96 2, 96 5 (9 th

Ci r. 19 81 ))).

If th es e jud ic ia l co nc ern s are m et

, th is co ur t gi ve s th e di st ric t co ur t’s weig hi ng

of eq ui ti es su bs t a n t i a l de fere nc e, rev ie win g th e cert ifi cat io n fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Wi ll

ia m s , 68 7 F .3d at 1 06 8 (h ol di ng th e d is tri ct co ur t i s “ m os t lik el y to

be fam il ia r wit h th e cas e an d wit h an y jus ti fia bl e reas on s fo r de la y ”). Thi s co ur t’s

-7

-ro le “ is no t to rewei gh th e eq ui ti es or reas se ss t h e f a c t s bu t to m ak e su re th at th e

co nc lu si on s de riv ed fro m th os e weig hi ng s an d as se ss m en ts are juri di cal ly so un d an d

su pp or te d by th e reco rd .” Cur ti ss -Wr ig ht

, 44 6 U.S. at 10 (“ The rev ie win g co ur t

sh ou ld di st ur b th e tri al co ur t’s as se ss m en t of th e eq ui ti es on ly if it can sa y th at t he
jud ge ’s co nc lu si on wa s c l e a r ly un reas on ab le .”). Se e Wi ll ia m s , 68 7 F.3 d at 10 67
(“ Cert ifi cat io n sh ou ld be gr an te d on ly if th ere ex is ts so m e da n g e r of ha rd sh ip or

in jus ti ce t hr ou gh de la y

whi ch wou ld be all ev ia te d b y im m ed ia te ap pe al .”).

As fo r th e fir st de te rm in at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t’s o r d e r di sm is si ng th e

co ns pi racy clai m

an d a ll cla im s ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty w as fin al

.

As fo r th e se co nd de te rm in at io n, th e di st ric t co ur t, co ns id eri ng “ eq ui ti es of th e

si tu a t i on an d jud ic ia l ad m in is tra ti ve in te res ts ,” ru le d it was “ pr efer ab le ” to al lo w pl ai nt iff s to ap pe al aft er th e m is tri al in st ead of aft er a se co nd tri al be cau se th e reco rd

is “ fu ll y de ve lo pe d

. . . an d th e is su es are fai rly li m it ed in sc op e,” in vo lv in g qu es ti on s

of la w ( whe th er pl ai nt if

f s waiv ed th ei r co ns pi racy cl ai m an d whe th er of fic ers were

“ po li cy m ak ers ”). Th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y reas on ed th at an ap pe al fro m th e

di sm is sa l of th e co ns pi racy cl ai m was l i k e l y, an d th at an ap pe al fro m th e co un ty’ s

di sm is sa l was a “ ne ar ce rta in ty.”

The m is tri al crea te d th e sp eci al cas e fo r an im m ed ia te ap pe al

. Thi s lit ig at io n

ha s al read y ge ne rat ed th ree in te r l o c u t or y ap pe al s, in cl ud in g th is on e. The di st ric t

co ur t reco gn iz ed “ th e la rg e tri al reco rd an d th e co m pl ex it y an d di ffi cu lt y of th is

cas e.” Dela y in g th e ap pe al un ti l th e c l o s e of an ot he r tri al wil l ad d to th is cas e’s

co m pl ex it y by req ui rin g co ns id erat io n of two se pa rat e, fu ll y de ve lo pe d reco rd s, an d

m ay req ui re y et an ot he r tr ia l i f th e ap pe al were s uc ces sf ul

.

Th e c ert ifi ed is su es on ap pe al are “ se lf- co nt ai ne d” an d an “ ap pe ll at e ru li ng

wil l fin al ly res ol ve th e su ffi ci en cy ” of th e cl ai m s. S ee Outd oo r Cent

. , 64 3 F.3 d at

11 20 . Rul e 5 4( b) cert ifi cat io n i s ap pr op ria te

.

-8

-B.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws “ de no vo th e gr an t or de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a

m at te r of la w, us in g th e sa m e st an da rd s as th e tri al co ur t.” Sha w Ho fs tr a & As so cs

.

v. Lad co Dev., In c. , 6 73 F.3 d 8 1 9

, 8 2 5 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 12 ). Rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy

of th e ev id en ce, th is co ur t dr aws “ al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e no nm ov in g

pa rty wit ho ut m ak in g cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts or weig hi ng th e ev id en ce.” Id

. A Ru le

50 (a) m ot io n is pr op er on ly if “ a reas on ab le jury wou ld no t ha ve a le ga ll y su ffi ci en t

ev id en ti ary ba si s to fin d fo r th e pa rty on th at is su e.” Fed. R. Civ

. P. 50 (a )(1 ) ; Mo ra n

v. Cl ar ke

, 29 6 F.3 d 63 8, 64 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (“ Su ch a ru li ng is ap pr op ria te on ly whe n

al l th e ev id en ce po in ts on e way an d is su sc ep ti bl e of no reas on ab l e i n fere nc es

su st ai ni ng th e p os it io n o f th e n on -m ov in g p art y .”).

1.

Pl ai nt iff s ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sm is sa l of th ei r co ns pi racy cl ai m

. The

di st ric t co ur t he ld th at pl ai nt iff s “ fai le d to pr es erv e [th ei r co ns pi racy] cl ai m in th e

fin al pr et ria l co nf

eren ce o r d e r” an d th at th e ev id en ce at tri al was in su ffi ci en t “ to

pr ov e th e es se nt ia l el em en ts of a co ns pi racy cl ai m .” Afte r a th or ou gh rev ie w of th e

reco rd , th is co ur t d is ag rees

.

True

, “ [t]he is su es id en ti fie d in th e Pret ria l Ord er su pe rs ed e an y is su es rai se d

in th e Co m

pl ai nt an d Am en de d Com pl ai nt .” Ha rt

m an v. Wo rk m an , 47 6 F.3 d 63 3,

63 4 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t he ard th e cas e on rem an d, afte r

th is co ur t he l d th at “ a fact fin de r co ul d de te rm in e th at W hi te ’s co nv ic ti on was th e

res ul t of a pu rp os efu l con sp ira cy by Defen da nt s to fab ric at e ev id en ce.” Whi te

, 69 6

F.3 d at 75 7. (The o t h e r pl ai nt iff s’ co ns pi racy cl ai m s were no t at is su e in pr io r

ap pe al s, al th ou gh th ei r cl ai m s ari se fro m th e s a me fact s.) Affi rm in g th e de ni al of

su m m ary jud gm en t on co ns pi racy, th is co ur t pr es erv ed th e cl ai m fo r tri al

. The di st ric t

co ur t’s in it ia l pr et ria l or de r an d it s refr am in g of is su es on rem an d are ne arl y id en ti cal

.

-9

-The y bo th in cl ud e as a co nt ro ve rte d is su e whe th er “ Defen da nt s, or an y on e of th em ,

m an uf act ur ed fal se ev id en ce ag ai ns t a na m ed Pl ai nt iff .” The di st ric t co ur t di d no t sa y

th at it s refr am in g of is su es ex cl ud ed th e pr ev io us ly pl ed co ns pi racy cl ai m

. Pl ai nt iff s

co nt in ue d to arg ue th e co ns pi racy is su e in tri al

, pr of feri ng ev id en ce (arg ui ng he ars ay

te st im on y was m ad e i n fu rth eran ce of a co ns pi racy) an d su bm it ti ng pr op os ed jury

in st ru ct io ns on th e co ns pi racy cl ai m

. The y di d no t waiv e th ei r co ns pi racy cl ai m

. The

di st ric t co ur t i m

pr op erl y he ld th at th e cl ai m

was wai ve d o n re m an d.

“ To pr ov e a ci vi l c o n s p i r a c y u nd er § 19 83 , [ pl ai nt iff s] m us t sh ow (1 ) two or

m or e pe rs on s; (2 ) an ob

ject to be acco m

pl is he d; (3 ) a m eet in g of th e m in ds on th e

ob ject or co ur se of act io n to be ta ke n; (4 ) th e co m m is si on of on e or mo r e u n l a w fu l

ov ert act s; an d (5 ) da m ag es as th e pr ox im at e res ul t of th e co ns pi racy.” Liv e r s v.

Sche nck

, 70 0 F.3 d 34 0, 36 0- 61 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ To be li ab le as a co ns pi rat or [o ne ]

m us t be a vo lu nt ary pa rti ci pa nt in a co m m on ve nt ur e.

. . . It is en ou gh if [Defe nd an ts ]

un de rs ta nd th e ge ne ral ob jecti ve s of th e sc he m e, acce pt th em , an d ag ree, e i t h e r

ex pl ic it ly or im

pl ic it ly, to do [th ei r] pa rt to fu r th er th em .” Whi te

, 69 6 F.3 d at 75 7,

qu ot in g Jo nes v. Ci ty of Chi ca go , 85 6 F.2 d 98 5, 99 2 (7 th Ci r.19 88 ) (al te rat io ns an d

el li ps is in ori gi na l).

The ev id en ce in su pp or t of co n s pi racy, vi ewed in fav or of pl ai nt iff s, is

su bs ta nt ia l. At tri al

, pl ai nt iff s su bm it te d ev id en ce th at de f e n d a n ts : were un ab le to

m at ch th e bl oo d an d se m en fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e; su gg es te d to Dean

, Sh el de n, an d

Gon zal ez th at th ey ha d rep res se d th ei r m em or y of th e rap e an d m ur de r; co nd uc te d

po lygrap hs

, h yp n os is

, an d reco m m en de d reca ll th erap y to reco ve r th es e bl oc ke d

m em or ie s; co nd uc te d u nr eco rd ed an d un rep or te d in te rro ga ti on s; di sr eg ard ed

in co ns is te nc ie s du rin g in te rro ga ti on s; su bm it te d affi d a v i ts wit ho ut di sc lo si ng

co nt rad ic ti on s to ev id en ce at th e c r i me s cen e; an d ig no red ve rif ia bl e al ib is

. Bo th

sh eri ff DeWitt an d co un ty at to rn ey Sm it h te st ifi ed that th ey co m m un ic at ed freq ue nt ly

an d wo rk ed to ge th er d ur in g i nv es ti ga ti on up to pl ai nt iff s’ con vi ct io ns

.

-1 0-Pl ai nt iff s “pro du ced pr oo f of qu es ti on ab le pr oc ed ur es ” an d “ ha st y

co nd em na ti on ” by of

fic ers in ch arg e of po li cy m ak in g. Se e Mo ra n , 29 6 F.3 d at 64 7-

48 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ) (rev ers in g gr an t of Ru le 50 (a) m ot io n on co ns pi racy cl ai m , ho ld in g

p ol ic e de pa rtment “ pu bl ic ly an d fin an ci al ly co m m it te d it se lf to pr od uc in g a cu lp r i t

fo r an all eg ed wron gd oi ng be fo re an y su ch wro ng do in g was act ua ll y est ab li sh ed ”).

Neit he r th e di st ric t co ur t no r th e of fic e r s po in t to su bs ta nt ia ll y di ffer en t ev id en ce

pr es en te d at tri al th at wou ld al te r th is c o u rt’s pr ev io us fin di ng on co ns pi racy. Se e

Li t t l e E a r t h of th e Unit

ed Tri be s, In c. , 80 7 F.2 d at 14 41 ; Mo sl ey v. Ci ty of

Nor th wo od

s, Mo

. , 41 5 F.3 d 90 8, 91 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng la w of th e cas e “ do es

n ot de pr iv e th e di st ric t co ur t of th e ab il it y to reco ns id er earl ie r ru li ng s to av o i d

rev ers al ”). The re was a su ffi ci en t ev id en ti ary ba si s fo r a jury to fin d fo r pl ai nt iff s on

th ei r co ns pi racy cl ai m

. Thi s co ur t ag ai n co nc lu de s th at “ th e fact s vi ewed in th e li gh t

m os t fav or ab le to W hi te [an d pl ai nt iff s] gi ve r i s e t o th e reas on ab le in fere nc e th at

Defen da nt s act ed in co nc ert wit h th e go al of se cu rin g” pl ai nt iff s’ co nv ic ti on s. Se e

Whi te

, 69 6 F.3 d at 75 7. The di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng th e co ns pi racy cl ai m

.

2.

Pl ai nt iff s ch al le ng e th e di sm is sa l of th ei r of fic ia l-c ap aci ty cl ai m s ag ai ns t Gag e

Co un ty. Pl ai nt iff

s arg ue th at sh eri ff DeWitt an d co un ty at to rn ey Sm it h “ were th e

fin al de ci si on m ak ers an d so le po li cy m ak ers fo r th ei r res p e c t iv e el ect ed co un ty

of fic es ,” an d “ th ei r co nd uc t in th os e sp eci fic a r e a s is fai rly at tri bu te d to Gag e

Co un ty.” Bec au se th is co ur t pr ev io us ly de te rm in ed th at “ th ere is no ev id en ce th at an y

act io n ta ke n by Sm it h pr io r to th e fil in g of cri m in al co m pl ai nt s ag ai ns t Pl ai nt iff

s was

un co ns ti tu ti on al ,” it ne ed no t co ns id er whe th er th e Co un ty is li a b le fo r hi s act io ns

. Se e Wi ns lo w , 69 6 F .3d at 7 39

.

“ [A] lo cal go ve rn m en t is li ab le un de r § 19 8 3 f o r it s po li ci es th at cau se

co ns ti tu ti on al to rts

. The se po li ci es m ay be set by t he go ve rn m en t’s la wm ak ers , ‘or
by th os e who se ed ic ts or act s m ay fa i rly be sa id to rep res en t of fic ia l po li cy .’ ”

-1 1-McM

il li an v. Mo nr oe Cnt

y., Al a

. , 52 0 U.S. 78 1, 78 4 (1 99 7)

, ci ti ng Mo nel l v. Dep ’t.
of So c. Ser vs

. , 43 6 U.S. 65 8

, 6 9 4 (1 97 8)

. “ [T]he tri al jud ge m us t id en ti fy th os e

of fic ia ls or go ve rn m en ta l bo di es who sp eak wit h fin al po li cy m ak in g au th or it y fo r th e

lo cal go ve rn m en ta l act or co nc ern in g th e act io n al le ge d to ha ve cau se d th e pa rti cu la r

co ns ti tu ti on al or st at ut or y vi ol at io n at is su e. Onc e th os e of fic ia ls who ha ve th e po wer

to m ak e of

fic ia l po li cy on a pa rti cu la r is su e ha ve be en id en ti fie d, it is fo r th e jury to

de te rm in e whe th er t h e ir de ci si on s ha ve cau se d th e de pr iv at io n of rig ht s at is su e by

po li ci es whi ch affi rm at iv el y co m m an d t h a t it oc cu r, or by acq ui es cen ce in a

lo ng st an di ng pr act ic e or cu st om whi ch co ns ti tu te s th e ‘stan da rd op erat in g pr oc ed ur e’

of th e lo cal go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty.” Je tt v. Dal la s I nd . Sch. Dis t. , 49 1 U.S. 7 01 , 73 7
(1 98 9)

. “ An un co ns ti tu ti on a l g o v e rn m en ta l po li cy can be in ferr ed fro m a si ng le

de ci si on ta ke n by th e hi gh es t of fic ia l res po ns ib le fo r se tt in g po li cy in th at area of th e

go ve rn m en t’s bu si ne ss .” Ang ar it a v. St

. Loui s Cnt y. , 98 1 F.2 d 15 37

, 15 46 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 ).

Rel y in g on Poo r Bea r v. Nes bi tt

, 30 0 F.Su pp .2d 90 4 ( D

. N e b

. 2 00 4)

, th e

di st ric t co ur t ru le d th at a “ co un ty sh eri ff act s pu rs ua nt to st at e-en act ed res tri ct io ns in

en fo rci ng th e cr im in al la ws of Neb ras ka an d is no t hi m se lf a po li cy m ak er fo r th e

co un ty fo r whi ch he is a sh eri ff.” Se e Poo r Bea r , 30 0 F.Su pp .2d at 91 7. In Buz ek v.

Co un ty of Sa un de rs , 97 2 F.2 d 9 9 2

, 9 9 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ), th is co ur t sa id th at a

Neb ras ka sh eri ff ha d “ br oa d di sc ret io n to se t po li cy as th e Co un ty’ s el ect ed Sh eri ff.”

Alt ho ug h in Buz ek th e sp eci fic po li cy m ak in g au th or it y was th e “ ex cl us iv e au th or it y

to f i r e ” a d ep ut y , Buz ek sh ows th at a Neb ras ka sh eri ff ha s fin al po li cy m ak in g

au th or it y in cert ai n area s. Neb ras ka la w de te r mi n e s if a Neb ras ka sh eri ff ha s fin al

po li cy m ak in g au th or it y in th e area of la w en fo rcem en t in ve st ig at io ns an d arre st s. Se e

At ki ns on v. Ci ty of Mo unt ai n V ie w, Mo

. , 70 9 F.3 d 1 2 0 1

, 1 21 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(“ W he th er San de rs ex erci se d fin al po li cy m ak in g au th or it y fo r th e ci ty is ‘a qu es ti on

of st at e la w.’ ” (q uo ti ng St

. Loui s v. Pra pr ot ni k

, 48 5 U.S. 11 2, 12 3 (1 98 8) (p lu ral it y

op in io n) )). Se e al

so Pem ba ur v

. C

i t y of Ci nci na tt

i

, 47 5 U.S. 46 9, 48 1 (1 98 6)
(p lu ral it y op in io n) (“ Mu ni ci pa l li ab il it y at t a c h e s on ly whe re th e de ci si on m ak er

-1 2-po ss es se s fin al au th or it y to es ta bl is h m un ic ip al po li cy wit h res pe ct to th e act i o n

or de red .”).

Sh eri ff DeWitt m ad e fi na l pol icy wit h reg ard to la w en fo rcem en t in ve st ig at io ns

an d arre st s in Gag e Co un ty. “ It ha s be en th e de cl ared po li cy of th e St at e of Neb ras ka

in th e ex erci se of it s po li ce po wers to fo st er an d pr om ot e lo cal co nt ro l of lo cal affa irs

. Hig he st ran ki ng in th is hi erar ch y of lo cal m at te rs is th e s u p e r vi si on of la w

e n f o r cem en t. The st at e pr ov id es a syste m of la w en fo rcem en t an d lo cal of fic er s t o

carr y ou t th e fu nc ti on s th ereo f on a da y -to -d ay ba si s wit hi n su ch syste m .” Neb. Rev

. Sta t. § 2 3- 28 01

. “ It [ is ] th e d ut y of t he sh eri ff b y

hi m se lf o r de pu ty to p res erv e th e

pe ac e i n h i s c o u nt

y , to ferr et ou t cri m e, to ap pr eh en d an d arre st al l cri m in al s, an d

in so far a s i t is wit hi n hi s po wer, to se cu re ev id en ce of al l cri m es co m m it te d in hi s

co un ty

, an d pr es en t th e sa m e to th e co un ty at to rn ey a nd th e gr an d jury; to fil e

i n f o r m at io ns ag ai ns t al l pe rs on s who he kn ows , or ha s reas on to be li ev e, ha v e

vi ol at ed th e la ws of th e st at e, an d to pe rfo rm al l ot he r du ti es pe rta in in g to th e of fic e

of sh eri ff.” § 23 -1 71 0 (em ph as is ad de d)

. The sh eri ff ha s “ ch arg e an d cu st od y of th e jail

, an d th e pr is on ers of th e sa m e, an d is req ui red to rece iv e th os e la wfu ll y co m m it te d

an d to ke ep th em hi m se lf or he rs el f, or by hi s or he r de pu ty jail er, un ti l di sc ha rg ed by

la w.” § 23 -1 70 3

. W eari ng a un ifo rm an d ba dg e is “ di sc ret io na ry at th e op ti on of th e

sh eri ff whe n he or sh e or hi s or he r de pu ti es are en ga ge d in sp eci al in ve st ig at io ns or

m en ta l pa ti en t as si gn m en ts .” § 23 -1 71 7. The of fic ers do no t id en ti fy a st at ut e gi vi ng

a n y en ti ty su pe rv is or y au th or it y ov er th e sh eri ff or a st at ut e req ui rin g a s h e r i f f t o

an swe r to an y su pe rio r. Se e ge ne ra ll y Mo rr o v. Ci ty of Bi rm in gh am , 11 7 F.3 d 50 8,

51 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 97 ) (co ns id eri ng m ean in gf ul ad m in is tra ti ve rev ie w in th e ab il it y to

m ak e p ol ic y ).

In McMil li an , th e pa rti es ag r e e d t h a t th e sh eri ff ha d fin al po li cy m ak in g

au th or it y in th e area of la w en fo rcem en t, bu t di sa gr eed whe th er th e sh eri ff m ad e

po li ci es fo r th e st at e or th e co un ty

. Thi s c o u r t m us t “ si m pl y as k whe th er Sh eri ff
[DeWitt ] rep res en ts th e St at e or th e co un ty whe n he a c t s in a la w en fo rcem en t

-1 3-cap aci ty.” McM i l li an , 52 0 U.S. at 78 5- 86 (“ [T]he qu es ti on is no t whe th er Sh eri ff

Tate act s fo r Alab am a or Mo nr oe Co un ty in so m e cat eg or ic al

, ‘all or no th in g’

m an ne r. Our cas es on th e li ab il it y of lo cal go ve rn m en ts un de r § 19 83 in st ru ct us to

as k whet he r go ve rn m en ta l offi ci al s are fin al po li cy m ak ers fo r th e lo cal go ve rn m en t

in a pa rti cu la r area , or on a pa rti cu la r is su e.” (ci ti ng Je tt

, 49 1 U.S. at 73 7) ). Alt ho ug h

th e Co ur t in McMil li an fo un d Alab am a sh eri ffs are st at e po li cymak e r s , “the St at es

ha ve wid e au th or it y to se t up th ei r st at e an d lo cal go ve rn m en ts as th ey wis h.

. . . [T]he

im po rta nc e of co un ti es an d th e na tu re of co un ty go ve rn m en t ha ve va rie d hi st or ic al ly

fro m reg io n t o re gi on , and fro m Sta te to Sta te .” Id

. at 7 95

.

A co m pa ris on of Neb ras ka an d Alab am a la w d e mo n st rat es th at Neb ras ka

sh eri ffs m ak e po li cy on be ha lf of th ei r co un ti es

. In McMil li an , th e Co ur t exam in ed

th ree co m pe ll in g au th or it ie s: (1 ) th e Alab am a co ns ti tu ti on li st s sh eri ffs as m em be rs

of th e st at e ex ecu ti ve br an ch ; (2 ) “ au th or it y to im pe ach sh eri ffs was m ov ed fro m th e

co un ty co ur ts to th e St at e Su pr em e Co ur t,” an d (3 ) th e Alab am a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s

he ld th at “ to rt cl ai m s br ou g h t a g ai ns t sh eri ffs ba se d on th ei r of fic ia l act s

. . .

co ns ti tu te su it s ag ai ns t th e St at e, no t su it s ag ai ns t th e sh eri ff’s co un ty.” McM il li an , 52 0 U.S. at 78 8- 89

. Neb ras ka la w di ffer s from Alab am a la w in each area . Neit he r

th e Neb ras ka co ns ti tu ti on no r i t s st at ut es li st sh eri ffs as m em be rs of it s ex ecu ti ve

br an ch

. Se e Neb. Con st

. Art. IV § 1 ; Neb. Rev

. Sta t. § 81 -1 01

. Unl ik e Alab am a,

Neb ras ka di st ric t co ur ts ha ve au th or it y to rem ov e co un ty of fic ers , in cl ud in g sh eri ffs

. Se e §§ 23 -2 00 1 ; 77 -1 71 9.0 2

. Fi na ll y , th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld a co un ty

li ab le fo r th e ne gl ig en t an d in te nt io na l to r t s o f it s sh eri ff. Se e Br an do n v. Cnt y. of

Ri cha rd so n , 26 1 Neb . 63 6, 6 27 -2 8 (2 00 1)

.

Oth er Neb ras ka la ws in di cat e th at sh eri ffs rep res en t th e co un ty whe n act in g in

a la w en fo rcem en t cap aci ty. A sh eri ff is a co un ty of fic er. Se e Neb. Rev

. Sta t. §§ 23

-
11 14 .01 -1 11 4.0 8 (li st in g sh eri ff’s sa la ry u nd er se ct io ns ti tl ed “ Co un ty Offi cers ;

Sal ari es ”). A sh eri ff’s sa la ry is se t by th e co un ty b o a r d

. § 2 3

- 11 14

. The co un ty

pr ov id es th e sh eri ff’s of

fic e wit h eq ui pm en t. § 23 -1 71 5

. The reg is te red vo te rs el ect

-1 4-th e co un ty sh eri ff an d m ay reca ll th e sh eri ff fro m of fic e. §§ 32 -5 20

, 32 -1 30 2

. True

,

so m e st at ut es sh ow st at e in flu en ce. Fo r ex am pl e, sh eri ffs are req ui red to tra in in th e

Neb ras ka Law Enfo rcem en t Trai ni ng Cen te r. § 23 -1 70 1.0 1

. S h e r i f f s “ sh al l at te nd

up on th e di st ric t co ur t” an d m us t “ ex ecu te or se rv e al l writ s an d p r o c e s s is su ed by

an y co un ty co ur t.” §§ 23 -1 70 5

, 23 -1 70 1.0 4

. The St at e al so em po wers sh eri ffs to act

be y on d th e bo un da rie s of th ei r co un ti es in so m e ci rcu m st an ces

. Se e § 29 -2 05
(rem ov in g ab s co nd ers to co un ty whe re wan te d)

. Nowh ere ha s th e Neb ras ka

le gi sl at ur e gi ve n ot he r co un ty of fic e r s th e au th or it y to en act po li ci es on cri m in al

in ve st ig at io n and arre st s. Se e § 23 -1 04

. Howev er, b as ed on th e McMil li an fact or s,

Sh e r i f f D e Wi tt rep res en ts th e co un ty in th e area of la w en fo rcem en t in ve st ig at io ns

an d a rres ts

.

The co un ty “ m ay on ly be he ld li ab le fo r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns whi ch res ul t

fro m a po li cy or cu st om of th e m un ic ip al it y .” Sche el

er v. Ci ty of St

. Cl ou d

, 40 2 F.3 d

8 2 6, 83 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). It is fo r th e jury to de te rm in e whe th er Sh eri ff De Wi t t ’s

de ci si on s “ cau se d th e de pr iv at io n of rig ht s at is su e by po li ci es whi ch affi rm at iv el y

co m m an d th at it oc cu r.” Je tt

, 49 1 U.S. at 7 3 7

. Th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y

di sm is se d th e cl ai m ag ai ns t th e co un ty be li ev in g th at “ th e pl ai nt iff s fai le d to pr es en t

ev id en ce of an of

fic ia l po li cy , un of

fic ia l cu st om , or a de li be rat el y in di ffer en t fai lu re

to tra in or su pe rv is e th at co ul d crea te li ab il it y

. ” To t h e co nt rary, th e pl ai nt iff s

in tro du ced ev id en ce t ha t Sh eri ff DeWitt m ad e d eci si on s abo ut th e in ve st ig at io ns in

th is cas e. Fo r ex am

pl e, he was pr es en t whe n W hi te was arre st ed an d i n t e r r o g a t e d,

an d watc he d as hi s de pu ti es ig no red W hi te ’s rep eat ed req ue st s fo r co un se l. He was

al so pr es en t at Dean ’s in te rro ga ti on an d watc he d as Dean ’s req ue st s fo r co un se l were ig no red

. Sh eri ff DeWitt kn ew th e Bea tri ce Po li ce de pa rtment be li ev ed t he wro ng

pe op le were arre st ed an d to ld th e ch ie f of po li ce to st ay ou t of in ve st ig at io ns , an d th at
Sg t. St e v e n s w a s “ m

ud dyin g th e wate rs .” DeWitt at te nd ed an in te rro ga ti on of

Tay lo r, whe re sh e was syste m at ic al ly an d in te nt io na ll y co ach ed

. Dean te st ifi ed th at

, in pl ai n cl ot he s, Dr. Pri ce m et wit h hi m in Sh eri ff DeWitt ’s of fic e. DeWitt pe rs on al ly

vi si te d d efen da nt s’ jail cel ls to tel l t he m it was in th ei r be st in te res t t o t el l t he tru th

.

-1 5-He to ld Gon zal ez th at du e to de at h th reat s fro m th e co m m un it y , sh e wou ld be lu ck y

to m ak e it to th e d e a t h p e n a l t y. It is fo r th e jury to de ci de if th es e de ci si on s (an d

ot he rs ) by Sh eri ff DeWitt co ns ti tu te d Gag e Co un ty po li cy th at cau se d th e de pr iv at io n

of rig ht s here

. Se e Buz ek

, 97 2 F.2 d at 99 6 (fi nd in g di st ric t co rrec tl y in st ru ct ed jury

“ th at th ey sh ou ld fin d t he Co un ty liab le if t he act io ns of S he rif f Po sk oc hi l wer e th e

‘offi ci al po li cy ’ of th e Co un ty” an d co rrec tl y ex pl ai ne d “ th at a si ng le de ci si on co ul d

refl ect off

ic ia l Co un ty pol ic y ” (ci ti ng Pem ba ur , 47 5 U.S. at 48 3) ).

* * * * * * *

The or de r di sm is si ng th e co ns pi racy cl ai m an d al l cl ai m s ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty

is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r fu rth er pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h th is

op in io n. Th e o rd er d en y in g q ua li fie d i m m un it y is affi rm ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 6-