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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 6- 40 59

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

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 de n

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

ff s - Ap pe ll ees

v.

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 ; Co un ty of Gag e, Neb ras ka , 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 ts - App el la nt

s

Ry an 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 t

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

The Nebr as ka Ass oc ia ti on of C ou nt y Offic ia ls ; Neb ras ka Sh eri ffs Ass oc ia ti on ; Nati on al Sh eri ff's Ass oc ia ti on ; In te rn at io na l M un ic ip al Lawy ers Ass oc ia ti on ; Th e

Neb ras ka Int erg ov ern m en ta l Ri sk Man ag em en t As so ci at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Amici on Beha lf

of App el la nt (s

)

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

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: Nov em be r 16 , 20 17
Fil ed : J un e 1 1, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s c as e is fam il ia r to us , as it is to Neb ras ka ns an d m uc h of th e na ti on

. It

ret ur ns aft er th ree pr io r op in io ns by th is Co ur t, two tri al s, an d, no w, on e jury ve rd ic t

th at is co nt es te d on th is ap pe al

. W e are as ke d he re, in la rg e pa rt, to swe ep th e pi eces

of f th e bo ard

—t o ov ert ur n ou r pr io r ru li ng s— in or de r to va cat e th e jury’ s ve rd ic t.

W e de cl in e to do so

. And

, aft er care fu l ex am in at io n of t h e rem ai ni ng cl ai m s on

ap pe al

, we fin d no ot he r reas on to di st ur b th e ve rd ic t or ru li ng s by th e di st ric t co ur t. 1

Thu s, we af

fir m

.

I.

The un de rlyin g fact s in th is cas e ha ve be en di sc us se d at le ng th in pa st ap pe al s.

See W in sl ow v. Sm it h, 69 6 F.3d 71 6 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ); W hi te v. Sm it h, 69 6 F.3d 74 0
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Dean v. Ct y

. of Gag e, 80 7 F.3 d 93 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 6

S. Ct

. 24 90 (2 01 6)

. W e pr ov id e a br ie f pr oc ed ur al su m m ary to or ie nt ou r di sc us si on

.

App el le e s are si x in di vi du al s— Jo se ph W hi te

, Ada Jo Ann Tay lo r, Tho m as

W in sl ow, Deb ra Sh el de n, Kath le en Gon zal ez, an d Ja m es Dean —wh o were arre st ed

fo r th e gr ue so m e Feb ru ary 19 85 rap e an d m ur d e r of Hele n W il so n in Bea tri ce,

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka

. -2

-Neb ras ka

. All pl ed gu il ty to v a rio us ch arg es in rel at io n to th e cri m e wit h th e 2

ex cep ti on of Jo se ph W hi te —h e wen t to tri al an d was co nv ic te d fo r fir st -d eg ree fel on y

m ur de r. Sh el de n, Gon zal ez, an d Dean se rv ed aro un d fiv e y ears ; th e res t se rv ed ne arl y

twen ty y ears

. App el le es were exo ne rat ed by DNA ev id en ce in 20 08

, an d th e St at e

3

of Neb ras ka fo rm al ly pa rd on ed th em in 20 09

. Tha t sa m e y ear, th ey fil ed th is la wsu it

on th e gr ou nd s th at th ei r de pr iv at io ns of li be rty were pr ev en ta bl e : t h e y a r gu ed th at

th ei r arre s t s a n d im

pr is on m en t were th e res ul t of a reck le ss in ve st ig at io n,

m an uf act ur ed fal se ev id en ce, an d co erce d co nf es si on s. The y as se rt cl ai m s un de r 42

U.S.C. § 19 83

, as well as pa ral le l co ns pi racy cl ai m s un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 85

, ag ai ns t Gag e Co un ty (wh ere Bea tri ce is lo cat ed ) an d th ree in di vi du al s in th e Gag e Co un ty’ s
Sh eri ff Dep art m en t— Sh eri ff Je rry DeWitt

, Dep ut y Bu rd et te Sear cey, an d Dep ut y

W ay ne Pri ce. 4

On pr io r ap pe al s, we na rro wed th e sc op e of App el le es ’ cl ai m s ag ai ns t Sh eri ff

DeWitt an d Dep ut ie s Sear cey an d Pri ce to reck le ss inv es tig at ion

, m an uf act ur e of fal se

ev id en ce, an d co ns pi racy. W e al so f o u nd th at th e of

fic ia ls were no t en ti tl ed to

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y

. The cas e th en pr oc eed ed to tri al whe re it in it ia ll y en de d in a

m is tri al

. Afte r th at

, th e di st ric t cou rt, pu rs ua nt to Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 5 4( b) , cert ifi ed it s

ru li ng s on co un ty li ab il it y an d th e co ns pi r a c y c l ai m s fo r ap pe ll at e rev ie w. W e

rev ers ed th e d is tri ct co ur t o n b ot h c la im s, fi nd in g t ha t Gag e Co un ty co ul d be li ab le

W e refe r to th em co ll ect iv el y as th e “ App e l l e e s

. ” D ur in g th e pe nd en cy of 2

th es e p ro ceed in gs , Ada J oAn n Taylor ch an ge d h er n am e to Ada J oAn n C us ta rd

.

Jo se ph W hi te is no w de ceas ed

. His wife

, Loi s W hi te

, is th e rep res en ta ti ve of 3

hi s es ta te in th es e p ro ceed in gs

.

Ri ch ard Sm it h, th e fo r mer G ag e Co un ty at to rn ey , was am on g th e ot he rs 4

in it ia ll y su ed

. W e affi rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at he was en ti tl ed to ab so lu te im m un it y an d di smi s s e d h i m f r om th e su it

. W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d at 73 9. DeWitt

, Sear cey, an d P ric e are th e o nl y in di vi du al s wh o re m ai n i n t he su it

.

-3

-fo r act s co m m it te d un de r po li ci es in st it ut ed by Sh eri ff DeWitt

, as co un ty sh eri ff, an d

th at th e co ns pi racy clai m s co ul d g o fo rward

. 5

App el le es on ce ag ai n pr oc eed ed to tri al aft er th ree in te rlo cu to ry op in io ns fro m

th is Co ur t. Thi s ti m e th e tri al en de d in a ve rd ic t an d award s fo r each of th e App el le es

to ta li ng ap pr ox im at el y $2 8.1 m il li on

. The ve rd ic t is su m m ari zed in th e ch art be lo w:

Dean White Gonz al ez Winsl ow Tayl or Shelden

Searcey ( Reckl ess

Inv esti gat i o n ) Dean W h i t e Go n

zal ez W i

n sl o w Tay l o r She l den

Pri ce (Reckl ess

Inv esti gat i o n ) Dean Pri ce Pri ce Pri ce Tay l o r She l den

DeW i t t ( Reckl ess

Inv esti gat i o n ) DeW i t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t

Searcey ( Man uf actur ed Evi den ce) Searcey W h i t e Go n

zal ez W i

n sl o w Tay l o r Searcey

Pri ce (Man

uf actur ed

Evi den ce) Dean W h i t e Go n

zal ez Pri ce Pri ce She l den

DeW i t t ( Man uf actur ed Evi den ce) DeW i t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t

Searcey ( Conspi racy ) Searcey Searcey Searcey Searcey Searcey Searcey

Pri ce (Co n spi

racy ) Pri ce Pri ce Pri ce Pri ce Pri ce Pri ce

DeW i t t ( Conspi racy ) DeW i t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t DeW i

t t

County Li ab i l i t y Dean W h i t e Go n

zal ez W i

n sl o w Tay l o r She l den

Dam ages $2,190, 000 $7,300, 000 $2,190, 000 $7,300, 000 $7,300, 000 $1,825, 000

On th is ap pe al , Ga ge Co un ty, Sea rcey, an d P ric e rai se fou r di st in ct cl ai m s in

th ei r op en in g br ie f, wit h th e co nt in ue d vi ab il it y of ou r pr io r ru li ng s be in g th ei r

DeWitt , Searc ey , and Pri ce al so cro ss -ap pe al ed , ask in g u s t o re -ex am in e th e 5

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y de te rm in at io n. W e fo un d th e ev id en ce in tro du ced at th e fir st tri al

co nt in ue d to su pp or t ou r pr io r de te rm in at io n th at th ey sh ou ld no t be gr an te d qu al ifi ed
im m un it y . Dean, 8 07 F.3d at 9 37

.

-4

-pr im ary fo cu s. Cf. Je nk in s v. W in te r, 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Cl ai m s no t 6

rai se d in an op en in g br ie f are de em ed waiv ed .”). Gag e Co un ty arg ue s th at jud gm en t

as a m at te r of la w s ho ul d be en te red fo r it be cau se ou r pr io r op in i o n o n i t s l i a bi li ty

was erro ne ou s an d, in an y cas e, li ab il it y is no t su pp or te d by th e tri al reco rd

. The

de pu ti es arg ue m

uc h t he same with reg ard s to qu al ifi ed im m un it y . Fail in g t ha t, t he
App el la nt s arg ue fo r a n e w tri al be cau se of (1 ) al le ge dl y pr ejud ic ia l be ha vi or by
App el le es ’ co un se l; an d (2 ) an al le ge d fai lu re of th e di st ric t co ur t to pr op erl y de fin e

“ reck le ss in ve st ig at io n” in th e jury ins tru ct io ns . W e ad dr es s ea ch cla im in tu rn

.

II.

As n ot ed ab ov e, Gag e Co un ty lau nc he s a two -p ro ng at ta ck on it s l ia bi li ty. It

fir st arg ue s th at we are no t bo un d by Dean an d th at we sh ou ld re-e xa m in e th at ru li ng

. Alt ern at iv el y , ev en if Dean ap pl ie s, Gag e Co un ty as se rts th at t h e ev id en ce was

in su ffi ci en t t o fi nd it li ab le

. A.

Acco rd in g to Gag e Co un ty, we are no t bo un d by ou r ho ld in g in Dean un de r th e

la w-o f-t he -cas e do ct rin e be cau se t h a t d e ci si on ap pl ie d co nt ro ll in g la w in co rrec tl y

. As a rem in de r, Dean he ld th at Neb ras ka co un ty sh eri ffs “ m ad e fin al po li cy w it h

reg ard to la w en fo r cem en t in ve st ig at io ns an d arre st s.” 80 7 F.3 d at 94 1. Fo r th at

reas on , we he ld th at it was fo r th e jury to de ci de in th is cas e “wh e t h e r Sh eri ff

DeWitt ’s de ci si on s cau se d th e de pr iv at io n o f 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.” Id

. at 94 2 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. 7

W e refe r to Sear cey an d Pri ce co ll ect iv el y as th e “ de pu ti es .” W e refe r to Gag e 6

Co un ty and th e de pu ti es as th e “ App el la nt s.” Sh eri ff DeW it t i s n ow d ecea se d. Hi s

es ta te do es no t ap pe al fro m th e jury’ s v erd ic t.

Gag e Co un ty al so su gg es ts th at th e ev id en ti ary reco rd no lo ng er su pp or ts th e 7

de ci si on in Dean

. Yet, Dean di d no t hi ng e it s ho ld in g on an y sp eci fic fact s; in st ead

, it ex am in ed Neb ras ka la w an d ap pl ic ab le pr eced en t (in cl ud in g McM il li an v. Mo nr oe

-5

-Our de ci si on in Dean is no t si m pl y la w of th e cas e. It is th e la w of th is ci rcu it

. Hen ce, we wou ld on ly re-e xa m in e th e de ci si on if it were “ rep ud ia te d or un de rm in ed
by la te r au th or it y , su ch as a st at ut e , an in te rv en in g Su pr em e Co ur t de ci si on , or en
ba nc de ci si on .” Bryan A. Garn er et al

., The La w o f J ud ic ia l Prec ed en t 38 (West

20 16 ). It is no t. Gag e Co un ty si m pl y se ek s to re-l it ig at e Dean on th is ap pe al

. So

, th e

tra di ti on al ru le ap pl ie s: “ as a de ci si on of a pa ne l

. . . [Dean ] bi nd s ot he r pa ne ls .”

Je nk in s b y

Agyei v. M is so ur i, 7 3 F .3d 20 1, 2 05 (8t h C ir. 1 99 6)

. 8

B.

Nex t, Gag e Co un ty arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng

of li ab i l i t y. Our rev ie w of jury ve rd ic ts is ex tre m el y de fere nt ia l gi ve n “ th e da ng er

th at th e jury’ s rig ht fu l pr ov in ce wil l be in va de d whe n jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w is

m is us ed .” Bav ls ik v. Gen

. Mo to rs , LLC, 87 0 F.3 d 80 0, 80 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . Thu s, we o nl y ov ert ur n a ve rd ic t wh en “ ‘the ev id en ce is

su ch th at

, wit ho ut weig hi ng th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , th ere is a co m pl et e ab se nc e

of pr ob at iv e fact s to su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Bro wni ng v. Pres id en t

Ri ve rb oa t Cas in o- Mo

., In c., 13 9 F.3 d 63 1, 63 4 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 9 8 ) )

. W it h th es e

pr in ci pl es in m in d, we ex am in e Gag e Co un ty’ s ar gu m en ts

.

A m un ic ip al en ti ty, li ke Gag e Co un ty, “ m ay no t be fo un d li ab le un le ss act io n

pu rs ua nt to of

fic ia l m un ic ip al po li cy of so m e na t u r e c au se d a co ns ti tu ti on al to rt.”

Co un ty, 52 0 U.S. 78 1 (1 99 7) ) to reac h it s ho ld in g th at Neb ras ka co un ty sh eri ffs were fin al po li cy m ak ers in “ la w en fo rcem en t in ve st ig at io ns an d arre st s.” Id

. at 94 1. And
whi le it di d li st cert ai n de ci si on s m ad e by Sh eri ff DeWitt th at a jury co ul d reas on ab ly

co ns tru e as es ta bl is hi ng po li cy th at cau se d th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns in th is cas e, it lef t t he ul ti m at e d eci si on to th e jury. Id . at 9 43

.
Gag e Co un ty pr ev io us ly as k e d t h i s C ou rt to co ns id er Dean en ba nc

. Tha t 8

req ue st was de ni ed

. It al so pe ti ti on ed th e Su pr em e Co u r t t o he ar th e cas e. Tha t

req ue st was a ls o d en ie d. Se e Gag e Cn ty. v. Dea n, 1 36 S. Ct. 2 49 0 (2 01 6)

.

-6

-S.M. v. Lin co ln Cn ty., 87 4 F.3 d 58 1, 58 5 (8 th Cir . 20 17 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Gag e Co un ty co nt en ds th at th ere is in su ffi ci en t ev id en c e o f cau sa ti on ,
arg ui ng th at “ [t]he re is no ev id en ce th at DeWitt [as fin al po li cy m ak er] crea te d po li cy

th at cau se d a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” App el la nt Br. 27

. Acco rd in g to th e Co un ty, 9

th e m an ne r i n w h i c h th e jury ret ur ne d it s ve rd ic t— fin di ng fo r Sh eri ff DeWitt , n ow
de ceas ed

, on al l co un ts an d fin di ng fo r a l l d e f e nd an ts on th e co ns pi racy

co un ts —m ean s th at App el le es ’ “ pr im ary th eo ry of m un ic ip al li ab il it y

. . . [wh ic h is ]

th at th e Co un ty was li ab le be cau se DeWitt

, as fin al po li cy m ak er, di rect ly pa rti ci pa te d

in vi ol at io ns of A p p e ll ees ’ co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s or in a co ns pi racy reg ard in g th e

sa m e” is no lo ng er va li d. And

, th e Co un ty co n t i n ue s, “ [t]he reco rd co nt ai ns no

ev id en ce of a po li cy to su pp or t an y ot he r th eo ry of m un ic ip al li ab il it y .” App el la nt Br.

29

. To su m up : Gag e Co un ty arg ue s th at th ere is “ no ev id en ce” li nk in g th e ju r y’ s

fin di ng o f s e ve nt een co ns ti tu ti on al to rts acro ss th e si x App el le es to co un ty p ol ic y

.

W e di sa gr ee. The jury was co rrec tl y in st ru ct ed —i n an in st ru ct io n th at th e

Co un ty di d no t ob

ject to or ap pe al fro m

—t ha t Gage Cou nt y was on ly li ab le if, afte r

fin di ng a co ns ti tu ti on al v i o la ti on , “ Sh eri ff DeWitt (a) di rect ed th at th e vi ol at io n

oc cu r, or (b ) au th or iz ed th e vi ol at io n, or (c) ag reed to a su bo rd in at e’s de ci si on to

en ga ge in th e v io la ti on .” 1 0

Acti ve in vo lv em en t i n c on st it ut io na l t or ts by Sheri ff DeWitt , in ot he r wor ds

, is no t th e on ly ev id en ce p r o b a t i ve of th e Co un ty’ s li ab il it y

. The jury fo un d th at

Sh eri ff DeWitt di d no t pe rs on al ly (1 ) en ga ge in reck le s s i n v e s t ig at or y ta ct ic s, (2 )

In it s su ffi ci en cy arg um en t, Gag e C o u nt y ag ai n ta ke s is su e wit h Dean

, 9

as s ert in g th at Sh eri ff DeWitt was no t th e rel ev an t po li cy m ak er at th e ti m e of th es e

ev en ts an d th at a Ne b r a s k a s he rif f is “ no t a co un ty po li cy m ak er.” Dean sq ua rel y fo rec l o s e s t h os e arg um en ts

, an d ou r di sc us si on in Sect io n II.A an d no te 7 ad dr es s why the re i s n o re as on to reco ns id er Dean he re.

Gag e Co un ty di d as k fo r sp eci al in te rro ga to rie s in reg ard s to th is in st ru ct io n. 1 0

Tha t re qu es t was de ni ed by the di st ric t co ur t an d n ot ap pe al ed he re.

-7

-man u f

a c t ur e fal se ev id en ce, or (3 ) en te r in to a “ kn owi ng ag reem en t or kn owi ng

m ut ua l un de rs ta nd in g” —a co ns pi ra c y as de fin ed in th is cas e—t o vi ol at e

c o n s t i t u t io na l rig ht s. Bu t, th e jury st il l fo un d th at he “ di rect ed ,” “ au th or iz ed ,” o r

“ ag reed to ” th e co ns ti tu ti on al to rts co m m it te d by th e de pu ti es . See Kel ly v. Cit y of

Om ah a, 81 3 F.3 d 10 70

, 10 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (n ot in g m un ic ip al li ab il it y at ta ch es if

“ po li cy m ak in g of

fic ia ls ha d no ti ce of or au th or iz ed ” un co ns ti tu ti on al act s)

. Si m pl y

pu t, th e jury co ul d ha ve d r a w n a lo gi cal di st in ct io n be twee n Sh eri ff Dewit t’s

in ve st ig at or y ro l e a n d hi s po li cy m ak in g an d m an ag eri al ro le

. The qu es ti on , t he n, 1 1

is whe th er th ere is ev id en ce sh owi ng DeWitt crea te d po li cy whi ch cau se d at le as t on e

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n— en ou gh fo r th e Co un ty to be li ab le fo r da m ag es —fo r each
App el le e.

W e fin d th at th ere is no t “ a co m pl et e ab se nc e of pr ob at iv e fact s,” Bav ls ik

, 87 0

F.3 d at 80 5 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, th at Sh er i f f DeWitt “ di rect ed ,”

“ au th or iz ed ,” or “ ag reed to ” at le as t on e co ns ti tu ti on al to rt co m m it te d ag ai ns t each
App el le e. The jury ha d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to be li ev e th a t th e in ve st ig at io n wou ld

ha ve fiz zl ed ou t wit ho ut Sh e r i f f DeWitt ’s co nt in ue d ap pr ov al of arre st s. Evi de nc e

at tri al sh owe d he al lo wed th e in ve st ig at io n to co nt in ue w i t h f u l l vi go r de sp it e

kn owi ng th e de pu ti es arre st ed in di vi du al s who di d n ot m at ch th e ph y si cal ev id en ce

fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e. On to p of th at

, th e ju r y c o u l d b e l i ev e he pe rm it te d th e

co nt in ue d in te rro ga ti on of arre st ees , reg ard le ss of th e kn ee-jer k, ba ffl in g st at em en ts

W e fin d no in co ns is te nc y in th e di st in ct io n th e jury dr ew in th e ve rd ic t. Bu t, 1 1

ev en if th ere were on e, we h av e a “ du ty to ha rm on iz e [ap pa ren tl y ] in co ns is te nt

ve rd ic ts whe n we can .” SEC v. Qua n, 81 7 F.3 d 58 3, 59 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. And , s pe ci fic al ly, whe re “ a ve rd ic t

or de c i s i o n ex on erat [es ] [an ] in di vi du al go ve rn m en ta l act or [],” we in qu ire whe th er th at de ci si on can be “ ha rm on iz ed wit h a c o n c om it an t ve rd ic t or de ci si on im po si ng li ab il it y on th e m

un ic ip al en ti ty.” Sp eer v

. C i t y o f W y nn e, 27 6 F.3 d 98 0, 98 6 (8 th
Ci r. 20 02 ). Here, th ere is no do ub t th at th e ve rd ic ts can be ha rm on iz ed

. As we ha ve
art ic ul at ed ab ov e, th e jury fo un d li ab il it y flo win g fro m Sh eri ff DeWitt ’s m an ag eri al

an d p ol ic y m ak in g ro le , bu t n ot hi s i nv es ti ga to ry rol e.

-8

-th ey ga ve —m an y of whi ch co nt rad ic te d p hysic al ev id en ce an d s ta te m en ts m ad e by

fel lo w a rres te es

. In so m e cas es , i t was do cu m en te d (an d sh own to th e ju ry ) th at he

ap pr ov ed th e arre st s of in di vi du al s so le ly on th e ba si s of se lf- co nf li ct in g st at em en ts

hi s de pu ti es el ic it e d f

r o m t h o se in de te nt io n. In th is way , he ga ve ox y ge n to th e
reck le ss in ve st ig at io n la rg el y le d by Sear cey an d th e jury fo un d fo r al l pl ai nt iff s an d

ag ai ns t Sear cey on th e reck le ss in ve st ig at io n cl ai m

. Tha t al on e is en ou gh to fin d th e 1 2

Co un ty li ab le as to al l App el le es

. DeWitt ’s m an ag eri al im pa ct

, ho wev er, was fel t in

a n um be r of ot he r way s.

Sh eri ff DeWitt in it ia ll y op en ed th e in ve st ig at io n. The jury he ard he di d so fo ur

y ears aft er th e ev en t s in qu es ti on —an d fo ur y ears aft er th e Bea tri ce Po li ce Dep art m en t (“ BPD”) an d th e FBI ha d do ne an ex te ns iv e in ve st ig at io n— on th e ba si s

of a w i t n es s th at Dep ut y Sear cey ha d m et whi le m oo nl ig ht in g as an un pa id pr iv at e

in ve st ig at or

.

Sh eri ff DeWitt , th e jury co ul d bel ie ve , kn ew of th e in ve st ig at or y tac ti cs us ed

an d affi rm at iv el y di rect ed th ei r us ag e. The jury was pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Sh eri ff

DeWitt sa t in on mu l t i p le in te rv ie ws co nd uc te d by Dep ut y Pri ce. The y co ul d

reas on ab ly in fer he kn ew of Pri ce’s m et ho ds

, in cl ud in g enc ou rag in g su bjec ts to us e

“ un co ns ci ou s reca ll ” to rem em be r fact s. The jury co ul d al so reas on ab ly co nc lu de th at

DeWitt ass ig ne d Depu ty Pri ce to sp eak to st ub bo rn arre st ees to el ic it fav or ab le

, bu t

de m on st rab ly fals e, st at em en ts

.

A nd Sh eri ff DeWitt

, as th e di st ric t co ur t no te s, in su la te d an d pr ot ect ed th e

in ve st ig at io n. The jury co ul d ha ve reas on ab ly cred it ed th e te st im on y of BPD Offi cer

Sam St ev en s th at Sh eri ff DeWitt act ed to pr ot ect th e in ve st ig at io n fro m hi s cri ti ci sm s

an d b el ie ve d t hi s ef

fo rt e ve nt ua ll y

led to Ste ve ns ’s rem ov al fro m it

.

W e fu rth er di sc us s th e reck le ss in ve st ig at io n le d by Sear cey in Sect io n III.A. 1 2

-9

-W hi le th is is cert ai nl y no t al l of th e ev id en ce of Sh eri ff DeWitt ’s hi erar ch ic al

im pa ct on th e in ve st ig a t i o n , i t d e m on st rat es th at th e jury ha d en ou gh to fin d th e

Co un ty liab le for th e App el le es ’ da m ag es

.

III.

Fro m co un ty li ab il it y we m ov e to an ot he r is su e th at we ha ve ru le d on bu t whi ch

is no w co nt es te d on th is ap pe al : qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W e fir st ex am in e whe th er th e

tri al reco rd co nt in ue s to su pp or t ou r pr io r qu al ifi ed im m un it y de te rm in at io ns be fo re

t u r n i ng to whe th er in te rv en in g Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t un de rm in es th e le ga l

fo un da ti on on whi ch ou r pr io r ru li ng s re st

.

A.

Qua li fie d im m

un it y is an is su e we rare ly ex am in e aft er tri al “ ‘becau se on ce th e
de fen da nt ha s ha d to p r o c e e d to tri al

, he or sh e ha s lo st th e be ne fit of qu al ifi ed

im m un it y , t ha t is , t he en ti tl em en t t o b e free fro m su it .’ ” Payne v. Bri tt en , 7 49 F.3 d

69 7, 70 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ti ng Part on v. Ash cro ft, 16 F

. 3 d 2 2 6

, 22 8 (8 th Ci r.

19 94 )). Pri or to tri al in th is cas e, an d in two se pa rat e op in io ns , we ap pl ie d th e

st an da rd qu al ifi ed im m

un it y te st

, lo ok in g to se e (1 ) if th e App el le es ha d of fere d fact s

t h a t s u f f ic ie nt ly al le ge d a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, an d (2 ) if th e la w de fin in g th at

vi ol at io n was cl earl y es ta bl is he d. See W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d at 73 1- 40 ; W hi te

, 69 6 F.3 d

at 75 3- 59

. Bas ed on th e reco rd pr es en te d to us , we m ad e a le ga l jud gm en t an d

an swe red bo th qu es ti on s in th e affi rm at iv e—wh ic h m ean t th at th e de pu ty sh eri ffs di d

no t h av e im m

un it y fro m su it

.

Now, aft er tri al —wh en we ha ve a fu ll y de ve lo p e d r eco rd —t he “ de ci si ve

q u e s t i o n” is whe th er th e fact s co nt in ue to su pp or t th e le ga l jud gm en ts we m ad e

pr ev io us ly. See Orti z v. Jo rd a n, 56 2 U.S. 18 0, 18 4 (2 01 1) (h ol di ng po st -tr ia l “ th e
de fen se [o f qu al ifi ed im m un it y ] m us t be ev al ua te d in li gh t of th e ch arac te r an d qu al it y

-1 0-of th e ev id en ce rece iv ed in co ur t” ). Afte r th e 20 14 m is tri al

, we fo un d th at “ [t]he tri al

te st im on y do es no t su pp or t th e [d ep ut ie s’] en ti tl em en t to qu al ifi ed im m un it y .” Dean

, 8 0 7 F

. 3d at 93 7. Tha t st at em en t co nt in ue s to ho ld tru e on th e cu rren t ( a n d n o w

co m pl et e) t ria l re co rd

.

On th is ap pe al

, th e de pu ti es ha ve of fere d twel ve pa rti cu la riz ed fact s th at th ey

arg ue ap pe ared in W hi te an d W in sl ow, bu t were no t pr ov en at tri al

. In th ei r ey es , th is

m ean s ou r qu al ifi ed im

m un it y de ci si on s are no lo ng er s up po rte d b y th e fact s. Eve n

acce pt in g th ei r du bi ou s arg um en t— th at th e twel ve fact s th ey po in t to were not pr ov en

at tri al —an d ex am in in g th e reco rd wit ho ut th em , ou r ho ld in gs in W hi te an d W in sl ow

rem ai n a m

pl y su pp or te d.

Afte r su m

m ary jud gm en t, we o bs erv ed th at :

[A] fact fin de r [co u l d ] i d en ti fy a pa tt ern whe reb y : Defen da nt s fir st

co nv in ced a su sp ect th at he or sh e was at th e sc en e of th e cri m e th ro ug h
li es , th reat s, le ad in g qu es ti on s, m an ip ul at iv e ‘the rap y ’ se ss io ns , an d th e

a ll eg ed accu sa ti on s of se ve ral ot he r ‘accom pl ic es ’; an d th en i f t h e

su sp ect ’s bl oo d was no t a m at ch fo r th e bl oo d fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e, Defen da nt s m an ip ul at ed th e s u s pe ct in to im pl ic at in g y et an ot he r in di vi du al , th us be gi nn in g t he pro ces s ag ai n.

W hi te

, 69 6 F.3 d at 75 5. On ou r rev ie w of th e reco rd

, ev id en ce of th is “ pa tt ern ” was
bo rn e ou t at tri a l

, s up po rti ng each of th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns th e jury fo un d. 1 3

The ev id en ce b eh in d e ach vi ol at io n i s d is cu ss ed be lo w.

Fu rt herm or e, it co nt in ue s to su pp or t ou r pr io r de te rm in at io n th at th e de pu ti es’ 13

co nd uc t “ sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce.” See W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d at 73 6; W hi te

, 69 6 F.3 d at
75 8.

-1 1-Reckl es s In ves ti ga ti on (Se ar cey)

The jury fo un d ag ai n s t S e a r c ey , an d fo r al l pl ai nt iff s, on th e reck le ss

in ve st ig at io n cl a i m. I n W hi te , we fo un d th at on e of th e te ll -ta le si gn s of a reck le ss

in ve st ig at io n was “ev i de nc e th at in ve st ig at or s pu rp os efu ll y ig no red ev id en ce

su gg es ti ng th e de fen da nt ’s in no cen ce.” 69 6 F.3 d at 75 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. The jury was sh own ev id en ce th at qu it e earl y in hi s in ve st ig at io n, Sear cey

kn ew th at hi s in it ia l arre st ees , W hi te

, Tay lo r, an d W in sl ow, were no t m at ch es fo r th e
bl oo d fo un d a t t he cri m e sc en e. The jury co ul d ha ve fou nd th at , des pi te pro fes si ng

th at th e in ve st ig at io n cen te red on fin di ng ev id en ce of a m at c h t o t he bl oo d at th e
cri m e sc en e, Sear c e y “ pu rp os efu ll y ig no red ” th e fact th at he ha d no m at ch es an d

pr es se d on wit h hi s in ve st ig at io n. To be su re, Sear cey can no t be li ab le “ m erel y fo r 1 4

ag gr es si ve ly in ve st ig at in g th e cri m e” by co nt in ui ng th e in ve st ig at io n at th is jun ct ur e.

W in sl ow, 69 6 F

. 3 d a t 7 3 4

. Bu t, as we de sc rib e be lo w, th e fact th at no m at ch fo r ph y si cal ev id en ce was fo un d be fo re th e cas e was cl os ed —an d th at th e jury was
sh own th at no co he ren t th eo ry was bu il t or ev en pu rs ue d ag ai ns t W hi te

, Tay lo r, an d

W in sl ow— su pp or ts th e jury’ s reck le ss in ve st ig at io n fin di ng ag ai ns t Sear cey an d fo r

W hi te , Tay lo r, an d Win sl ow.

A f t e r Sear cey’ s in ve st ig at io n hi t a wall

, ha vi ng arre st ed an d de ta in ed th re e

su sp ect s who di d n ot m at ch th e p hysic al ev id en ce at th e cri m e sc en e, ev id en ce was

pr es en te d th at Sear cey tu rn ed to a no to rio us ly un rel ia bl e wit ne ss to pr ov id e a sp ark :
Cl iff Sh el de n. Cl iff

, in tu rn , im

pl ic at ed hi s wif

e , D e b r a S he ld en

. The ev id en ce

Fo r ex am pl e, in hi s i ni ti al in te rv ie w wi th W hi te , S earc ey st at ed th at he was 1 4

“ go in g to wan t y ou kn ow bl oo d te st

, ha ir, we m ay be ev en wan t so m e sp erm ,” whi ch

“ wou ld po si ti ve ly id en ti f y [Whit e.]” W hi te res po nd ed : “ Yep

. And it can al so
po si ti ve ly pr ov e I was n’t th ere.” Sear cey di d th e sa m e wit h W in sl ow as well

. In on e of hi s in te rv ie ws wit h W in sl ow, Sear cey to ld hi m : “ we’re lo ok in g for a cert ai n ty pe of bl oo d, do y ou kn ow wha t type th at is ? ” Afte r W in sl o w s a i d h e di d no t, Sear cey

res po nd ed th at “ we’re lo ok in g fo r Ty pe B po si ti ve .”

-1 2-pr es en te d t o t he jury sh owe d t ha t Cl iff to ld Sear cey that Sh el de n was sh ov ed in to a

m irr or at th e cri m e sc en e, th e m irr or br ok e, an d Sh el de n bl ed ev eryw he re. A br ok en

m irr or was no t fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e. Neve rth el es s, Sh el de n was pi ck ed up an d

in te rv ie wed by Sear c e y. D u rin g th e in te rv ie w, sh e co nf es se d to be in g at th e cri m e

sc en e, bu t th e jury was sh own th at he r co nf es si on co nt ai ne d gl ari ng in co ns is te nc ie s
wit h h e r hu sb an d’s st at em en t. Mo re im po rta nt ly, whe n he r bl oo d was te st ed th e 1 5

ne xt da y , ev id en ce pr es en te d to th e jury sh owe d th at it di d no t m at ch th e bl oo d at th e
cri m e sc en e.

Dean was arre st ed sh or tl y aft er Sh el de n. Dean m ai nt ai ne d hi s in no cen ce fo r 1 6

22 da y s, an d, ag ai n, hi s vo lu nt ary bl oo d sa m pl e di d no t m at ch th e bl oo d at th e cri m e

sc en e. Dur in g th e co ur se of in te rro ga ti ng Dean

, th e jury was sh own th a t S e a r c e y

rece iv ed la b rep or ts co nf

irming th at th e se m en fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e di d no t m at ch

W in sl ow or W hi te —h is on l y two su sp ect s wit h res pe ct to th e rap e of th e vi ct im

. Sear cey m ad e no at te m

pt t o f i n d t h e so ur ce of th e se m en aft er th is

. In st ead

, he

arre st ed Gon zal ez. As th e jury he ard

, Gon zal ez pr ov ed an im pe rfec t m at ch to th e
bl oo d fo un d at th e cri m e sc en e. W hi le sh e ha d Ty pe B bl oo d— whi ch was th e sa m e type fo un d a t t he sce ne —ce rta in ge ne ti c m ark ers di ffer ed fro m th e sa m pl e fo un d a t

th e sc en e. Thi s m ean t sh e was no t a m at ch fo r th e bl oo d at th e cri m e sc en e. The jury

he ard ev id en ce t h a t Sear cey le arn ed an d un de rs to od th is be cau se he rece iv ed a
de ta il ed an al y si s of Gon zal ez’s bl oo d fro m th e Neb ras ka St at e Po li ce. Gon zal ez

ev en tu al ly co nf

es se d aft er he r req ue st fo r DNA an al y si s of he r bl oo d was de ni ed on

th e gr ou nd s th at it was co st pr o h i b i t i v e

. At th at po in t, th e jury was pr es en te d

Fo r in st an ce, th e jury w a s s ho wn th at Sh el de n ne ve r co nf irmed th at sh e 1 5

cras he d i nt o a m irr or

. In st ead

, sh e cl ai m ed th at sh e fel l b eh in d t he be d. On e o f th e
st ark es t in co ns is te nc ie s pr es en te d to th e jury, ho wev er, was he r arri va l t i me at th e cri m e sc en e: he r hu sb an d sa id Sh el de n ha d be en wit h hi m at th e ho sp it al at th e ti m e sh e sa id sh e arr iv ed at t he cri m e sc en e.

W e di sc us s th e ev id en ce us ed to ar res t Dean whe n ev al ua ti ng th e 1 6

m an uf act ur ed ev id en ce v erd ic t.

-1 3-ev id en ce th at Sear cey’ s i nv es ti ga ti on —wh ic h h e st art ed as un pa id in ve st ig at or an d

la te r co nt in ue d un de r of

fic ia l au th or it y as a de pu ty sh eri ff— cam e to an en d. The jury

was sh own th at it en de d wit ho ut a si ng le m at ch to th e ph y si cal ev id en ce at th e cri m e

sc en e. In st ead

, it was wrap pe d up wit h on e ou t of si x arre st ees , Gon zal ez, m at ch in g

th e b lo od type o f th e b lo od fou nd at t he sce ne —b ut no t t he act ua l b lo od it se lf.

W e fin d th e jury ha d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce th at Sear cey co nd uc te d a r e c k le ss

in ve st ig at io n as to al l si x pl ai nt iff s b y “ pu rp os efu ll y ig no r[i ng ]” th e ph y si cal

ev id en ce— whi ch he ad m it te d was cru ci al —at th e cri m e sc en e.

Reckl es s In ves ti

ga ti on (Pri ce)

The jury al so f

o u nd fo r Dean

, Tay lo r, an d Sh el de n on Pri ce’s reck le ss

in ve st ig at io n c la im

.

Bas ed on th e ev id en ce pr es en te d, in fin di ng fo r Dean

, th e jury co ul d ha ve

co nc lu de d th at Pri ce de li be rat el y ig no red hi s pr ot es ta ti on s of in no cen ce an d in st ead

en co ur ag ed hi m t o d r eam up ev id en ce of hi s pr es en ce at th e cri m e sc en e. In ot he r

wor ds

, th e jury was pr es en te d wit h “ ev id en ce of syste m at ic pr es su re to im pl ic at e th e
de fen da nt in th e face of co nt rary ev id en ce.” W hi t e , 69 6 F.3 d at 75 8 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Fo r ex am pl e, ev id en ce at tri al sh owe d th at

, aft er week s of

Dean pr ot es ti ng hi s in no cen ce, Pri ce pu sh ed pa st t h a t an d in st ead fo un d a way fo r

Dean to “ reco nc il e hi s [u nc on sc io us aware ne ss of ] be in g pr es en t wit h th e co ns ci ou s
be li ef t ha t h e was no t t he re.”

The jury al so co ul d ha ve fo un d th e sa m e “ syste m at ic pr es su re” at wor k in

fi n d i n g f o r Ta y lo r an d Sh el de n. Pri ce ha d pr ev io us ly tre at ed bo th of th em as a

pr act ic in g ps y ch ol og is t in Bea tri ce. Evi de nc e pr es en te d at tri al

, fo r ex am pl e, sh owe d

he ha d m et wit h, an d ev al ua te d

, S h e l d e n whe n sh e was co ns id eri ng gi vi ng up he r

-1 4-ch il d. In th e co ur se of th at ev al ua ti on , he ha d no te d th at sh e “s e e ms t o l iv e on a

pr in ci pl e by whi ch sh e act s ou t im pu ls iv el y an d res po nd s to he r act io ns on ly if th ere

ar e ne ga tiv e co ns eq ue nc es .” And he ha d pr ev io us ly di ag no se d Tay lo r wit h borde rl ine

pe rs on al it y

di so rd er. 1 7

Des pi te hi s pr io r en co un te rs wit h bo th Tay lo r an d Sh el de n in a th erap eu ti c

co nt ex t, Pri ce wor ke d wit h th em bo th in t he co ur se of th e in ve st ig at io n. Evi de nc e

pr es en te d be fo re th e jury su gg es te d th at he “ co un se le d” Sh el de n who “ in i t i a ll y

. . . ha d no m em or y of be in g at th e sc en e of th e cri m e” in to su bs eq ue nt ly “ rem em be r[i ng ]

al l of th e ev en ts on th e ni gh t in qu es ti on .” Pri ce al so co un se le d Tay lo r aft er he r 1 8

arre st . From th is , th e jury cou ld ha ve reas on ab ly con cl ud ed th at it was reck le ss for

Pri ce to ta ke ad va nt ag e of hi s pr io r cl in ic al rel at io ns hi p wit h bo th Tay lo r an d Sh el de n

in or de r to ge t th em to sp eak an d im pl ic at e t h e ms e l v e s in th e cri m e “ in th e face of

co nt rary evi de nc e.” Id

.

Man uf ac tu ri ng Evid en ce (S ea rc ey)

The jury fo un d fo r W hi te

, Gon zal ez, W in sl ow, an d Tay lo r ag ai ns t Sear cey on

th e m an uf

act ur in g ev id en ce cl ai m

. In an in st ru ct io n th at is un ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

,
t h e ju ry was to ld th at th ree el em en ts m us t be m et to pr ev ai l on th e m an uf act ur e d

e v i d e n c e cl ai m

. Fi rs t, th e “ Defen da nt fab ric at ed

, th at is

, m ad e-u p, fal se ev id en c e

ag ai ns t on e or m or e of th e Pl ai nt iff s du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n.” Seco nd

, “ th e

Defen da nt in te nt io na ll y fab ric at ed fal se ev id en ce.” And

, th ird

, “ as a di rect res ul t of

su ch act io n, th e Pl ai nt iff su ffer ed so m e da mag e.” The re was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

su pp or ti ng th e fi nd in gs ag ai ns t Se arce y

.

Pri ce ad m it te d le arn in g ov er th e co ur se of hi s tre at m en t of Tay lo r th at sh e was 1 7

se xu al ly and ph y si cal ly abu se d a s a c hi ld

.

Thi s st at em en t was m a d e i n a n affi da vi t by Dean ’s at to rn ey

. Fu rth erm or e, 1 8

Pri ce h ad on e co ns ul ta ti on wit h S he ld en for whi ch no reco rd s wer e k ep t.

-1 5-Fo r W hi te an d Tay lo r, th e jury was pr es en te d wit h ev id en ce of Sear cey’ s fal se

affi da vi t fo r arre s t. The jury ha d ba si s to be li ev e th at a nu m be r of fal se st at em en ts

were i nc lu de d in th e affi da vi t, inc lu di ng a fl at -o ut li e ab ou t Win sl ow co rro bo rat in g

a n o t h e r wit ne ss

. Giv en th at W hi te an d Tay lo r were arre st ed on th at ba si s, th e ju r y
ha d a m pl e ev id en ce i n fi nd in g fo r th em an d a ga in st Sear cey.

A s w e n o t e d in a pr io r op in io n, “ th ere is ev id en ce th at su gg es ts Sear cey

. . .

co ach ed wit ne ss es to su pp ly fal se ev id en ce ab ou t

. . . W in sl ow.” W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d

a t 73 4. Perh ap s th e m os t te ll in g ex am pl e of th is pr es en te d to th e jury w a s t h e

su pp os ed id en ti fic at io n pr ov id ed by Tay lo r whi ch le d to W in sl ow’s arre st

. Afte r

in te ns e in te rro ga ti on , Tay lo r was as ke d to pi ck fro m a li ne up an in di vi du al who was

pu rp or te dl y

wit h h er at th e cri m e sc en e. Sh e was sh own fo ur in di vi du al s un kn own

to he r, on e who Sear cey sp eci fic al ly to ld he r was no t th ere, an d W in sl ow who m sh e

kn ew an d ha d pr ev io us ly to ld of fic ers sh e ha d fear ed

. Sh e pi ck ed W i n sl ow an d

W in sl ow was arre st ed on th at ba si s. A jury co ul d reas on ab ly in fer fro m th is ev id en ce

th at th e id en ti fic at io n was m an uf act ur ed

.

Fi na ll y , Gon zal ez was arre st ed be cau se Sh el de n an d Dean ha d co m e to be li ev e,
ba se d on dr eam s, th at an ot he r in di vi du al was at th e cri m e sc en e. Rev ie win g th e

ev id en ce at su m

m ary jud gm en t, we ob se rv ed “ [a] reas on ab le i n f e r e n c e is th at

Gon zal ez’s id en ti fic at io n was no t a co in ci de nc e; in st ead

, a reas on ab le fact fin de r

co ul d fin d th at Defen da nt s co ach ed or co erce d [Sh e l d en ] an d Dean to im pl ic at e

Gon zal ez.” Id . a t 73 3. One ex am pl e th at cam e ou t at tri a l b e a r s t hi s ou t. The jury

was pr es en te d ev id en ce sh owi ng Sh el de n an d Dean ga ve wil dl y di ffer in g st at em en ts

in it ia ll y as t o wh at th ey

reca ll ed in th ei r dr eam s. Bu t— in cu rio us ly tim ed reco rd ed

s t at em en ts aft er pr io r un reco rd ed m eet in gs —t he y bo th id en ti fie d si m il ar pi ece s o f

cl ot h i n g th at Gon zal ez was al le ge dl y weari ng

. The jury was sh own th at th e arre st

warra nt fil ed by Sear cey pr om in en tl y feat ur ed th at so le bi t of co rro bo rat io n. The jury

co ul d reas on ab ly in fer from th is

, an d from th e se qu en ci ng of th e in te rv ie ws an d t he

pa tt ern of reco rd ed ve rs us un reco rd ed st at em en ts

, th at Sear cey “ co ach ed or co erce d
[Sh el de n] an d Dea n t o i m pl ic at e Gon zal ez.” Id

.

-1 6-Man uf ac tu ri ng Evid en ce (Pr ic e)

The jury fo un d fo r Dean

, Wh i t e , S he ld en , a nd Gon zal ez ag ai ns t Pri ce on th e

m an uf act ur in g evi de nc e cl ai m

. In ou r pr io r op in io ns , we he ld th at it was pr op er for

th e jury to co ns id er whe th er th e “ in do ct rin at io n” a n d pr es su re pl aced by Pri ce on

so m e of th e App el le es to dr eam up ev id en ce co ns ti tu te d th e m an uf act ur e of fal se

ev id en ce. See, e.g ., W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d a t 7 33

. Si m il ar to wha t we ob se rv ed aft er

su m m ary jud gm en t, th e jury was pr es en te d ev id en ce fro m whi ch it co ul d in fer Pri ce

act iv el y cajo le d a nd en co ur ag ed cert ai n App el le es , s om e of who m (li ke Tay lo r an d

Sh el de n) were m en ta ll y

in fir m , to si m

pl y m ak e u p e vi de nc e fro m

th ei r dr eam s.

The ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al sh owe d th a t D e a n w a s arre st ed so le ly on th e
ba si s of a dr eam th at Sh el de n ha d aft er a “ th erap y ” se ss io n wit h Pri ce. Pri ce ha d to ld

Sh el de n t o “re l a x” an d th at sh e m ay be gi n to reca ll ot he r in di vi du al s at th e cri m e

sc en e ba se d on he r dr eam s. Afte r th at

, sh e to ld Sear cey sh e dr eam ed th at Dean was

at th e cri m e sc en e. A reas on ab le jury—pre se nt ed wit h ex pe rt te st im on y th at dr eam s
do no t con st it ut e ta ng ib le ev id en ce— co ul d fin d th at Pri ce del ib erat el y m an ip ul at ed

Sh el de n to “ dr eam ” an ot he r na m e an d th at Dean was ha rm ed by th is be cau se th is was

th e so le ba si s on whi ch he was arre st ed

. The jury co ul d ha ve al so reas on ab ly in ferr ed

th at Pri ce cau se d Sh el de n to m an uf act ur e te st im on y , as was di sc us se d ab ov e, th at sh e

was at t he cri m e sc en e whe n s he in it ia ll y ha d n o m em or y

of b ei ng th ere.

As fo r Gon zal ez, Dean pl aced he r at th e cri m e sc en e on ly aft er sp eak in g wit h

Pri ce. The jury was pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Pri ce to ld Dea n t h a t ev id en ce of th e

m ur de r wou ld co m e ba ck to hi m in dr eam s. I n d e e d

, i n a reco rd ed in te rv ie w wh ere
he id en ti fie d Gon zal ez, Dean st at ed th at he “ rem em be red [Go nz al ez ’s p r es en ce] in
[ h i s ] sl eep .” W hi te was pe rh ap s th e m os t im pa ct ed by Pri ce’s ta ct ic s be cau s e h e

in si st ed on a tri al

. Evi de nc e pr es en te d sh owe d t ha t at W hi te ’s cri m in al tri al , De an , Sh el de n, an d Taylor to ok th e st an d a nd tes ti fie d as to what th ey were ab le to ga th er

fro m th ei r dr eam s af

te r “ wor ki ng ” wit h P ric e.

-1 7-Mo re th an su ffi ci e n t e v i d en ce was pr es en te d to th e jury to fin d th at Pri ce’s

m an ip ul at io n th ro ug h “ th erap y ” cau se d th e m an uf act ur e of fal se te st im on y whi c h

m at eri al ly affect ed Dean , She ld en , Gon zal ez, an d P ric e.

B.

In ad di ti on to th e fact ua l fin di ng s, th e de pu ti es al so t a k e ai m at th e le ga l

co nc lu si on s reac he d in W hi te an d W in sl ow. Bu t, as wit h Dean

, th e le ga l co nc lu si on s

rep res en t bi nd in g pr eced en t. And on ly i f t h ey were “ rep ud ia te d or un de rm in ed by

la te r co nt ro ll in g a ut ho rit y ,” Garn er et al ., Th e Law of Ju di ci al Prec ed en t 38 , wo ul d

we ha ve oc cas io n to rev is it th em

. Su ch an oc cas io n wou ld be rare in de ed be cau se th e

in te rv en in g au th or it y wou ld ha ve to rai se qu es ti on s ab ou t th e “ su bs ta nc e an d cl ari ty

of pr e-ex is ti ng la w”—t he st at e of th e la w in 19 89 in th is cas e. Jo rd an , 56 2 U.S. at

19 0. App el la nt s do

, ho wev er, pu rp or t to rai se su ch au th or it ie s by ci ti ng th e Su pr em e

Co ur t’s de ci si on s in W hi te v. Pau ly, 13 7 S. Ct

. 54 8 (2 01 7)

, an d Ci ty & Co un ty of San

Fran ci sc o v. Sh eeh an , 13 5 S. Ct

. 17 6 5 ( 2 0 1 5 )

, bo th of whi ch

, it is arg ue d, rai se

qu es ti on s ab ou t th e “ cl ari ty” o f th e la w wit h reg ard s to reck le ss in ve st ig at io n in

19 89

. St at ed di ffer en tl y , th ey d o no t arg ue th at th e Co ns ti tu ti on ex cu se s th ei r 1 7

co nd uc t. The ir on ly po in t on ap pe al is th a t ne w de ci si on s by th e Su pr em e Co ur t

su gg es t t ha t t he un co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he ir a ct s was no t s uf

fic ie nt ly clear in 19 89

.

To st art

, P a u l y a n d Sh eeh an do no t an no un ce in he ren tl y ne w pr in ci pl es : as

Pau ly it se lf st at ed

, th e de ci si on “ rei te rat e[d ] th e lo ng st an di ng pr in ci pl e th at ‘clear ly

es ta bl is he d law’ sh ou ld no t be defi ne d ‘ at a hi gh le ve l of ge ne ral it y .’ ” 13 7 S. Ct

. at

55 2 (q uo ti ng Ash cro ft v. al -Kid d, 56 3 U.S. 73 1, 74 2 (2 01 1) ). The reas on be hi nd th is

ru le

, as th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ex pl ai ne d, is to en su re pu bl ic of fic ia ls can “ reas on ab ly

. . . a nt ic ip a te whe n th ei r co nd uc t m ay gi ve ris e to li ab il it y fo r da m ag es .” Zig la r v.
Abb as i, 13 7 S. Ct

. 18 43

, 18 67 (2 01 7) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W hi le “ [i]t

The de pu ti es do no t (an d di d no t pr ev io us ly) co nt es t th at th e rig ht to be free 1 7

fro m th e u se of m an uf

act ur ed ev id en ce was cle arl y est ab li sh ed in 19 89

.

-1 8-is no t ne ces sa ry , of co ur se , th at th e ve ry act io n in qu es ti on ha s pr ev io us ly be en he ld

un la wfu l,” id

. at 18 66 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, th e di sp os it iv e qu es ti on is

whe th er th ere was a “ fai r an d cl ear warn in g of wha t th e Co ns ti tu ti on req u i res ,”

Sh eeh an , 13 5 S . Ct. at 17 78 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Not hi ng in th es e cas es al te rs th e co nc lu si on we reac he d in ou r pr io r op in io ns

. In bo th W hi te an d W in sl ow, we ex am in ed th e de pu ti es ’ act io ns an d fo un d th at a jury

co ul d be li ev e th a t t h e y “ co nd uc te d a co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g reck le ss in ve st ig at io n

. .

. th at was us e d to bo x” App el le es in

. W in sl ow, 69 6 F.3 d at 73 6. And we

h e l d

— r e l yin g on Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t an d th is Co ur t’s ho ld in g in W il so n v.

Lawren ce Co un ty, 26 0 F.3 d 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 )—t ha t th e pr oh ib it io ns ag ai ns t th ei r

act io ns were cl earl y es ta bl is he d in 19 89

. The de pu ti es arg ue th at it was im pr op er to

rel y on “ ge ne ral st at em en ts of th e la w” in reac hi ng th e la tt er co nc lu si on

. Bu t, Pau ly

ex pl ic it ly reaf

fir m ed th at “ ge ne ral st at em en ts of th e la w are no t in he ren tl y in cap ab le

of gi vi ng fai r an d cl ear warn in g” so lo ng as “ th e un la wfu ln es s

. . . [is ] ap pa ren t.” 13 7

S. Ct

. at 55 2 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. The re is no do ub t th at th e co nd uc t

we de sc rib ed ab ov e an d in pr i o r o p in io ns is (an d was ) un la wfu l. In de ed

, “ if an y 2 0

co nc ep t is fu nd am en ta l to ou r Am eri c a n syste m of jus ti ce, it is th at th os e ch arg ed

wit h u ph ol di ng th e la w are p ro hi bi te d fro m

. . . f ram in g in di vi du al s fo r cri m es th ey
di d no t co m

m it .” Lim on e v . Con do n, 3 72 F.3d 39 , 44 -4 5 (1 st Cir . 20 04 ). Th e jury

was warra nt ed in co nc lu di ng th at th is is ex act ly wha t ha pp en ed th ro ug h th e reck le ss

in ve st ig at io n h ere.

The pr oh ib it io n on us in g of fic ia l po wer to fram e in di vi du al s is d e e p l y
emb e dd ed in th e hi st or ic al ro ot s of du e pr oc es s. See, e.g ., 1 E. Co ke

, The Seco nd

The de pu ti es al so su gg es t ou r pr io r op in io ns ran afo ul of Pau ly by “ lo ok [in g] 2 0

at al l th e de f

e n d a n t s ’ co nd uc t co ll ect iv el y .” App el la nt Br. 48

. Our pr io r op in io ns , ho wev er, id en ti fie d sp eci fic act s by each de pu ty th at r a n a f o ul of th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. As di sc us s ed ab ov e as well

, th e ev id en ce at tri al was sp eci fic en ou gh to hi gh li gh t in di vi du al vi ol at io ns by each d ep ut y

.

-1 9-Part of th e In st it ut es of th e Laws of Eng la nd 44 (1 79 7) (q uo ti ng Mag na Cart a of 12 25

as sa y in g “ No ba il iff fro m he nc efo rth sh al l pu t an y m an to hi s op en la w

. . . up on hi s

own ba re sa y in g , w i t ho ut fa it hf ul wit ne ss es br ou gh t in fo r th e sa m e” (em ph as is

ad de d) ); se e al so Peo pl e v. Is aacs on , 37 8 N.E.2d 78

, 82 (N.Y. 19 78 ) (n ot in g

“ ap pl ic at io n of du e pr oc es s to ou tra ge ou s co nd uc t of la w en fo rcem en t ag en ts su ch as

to warra n t a r e s t rai nt of th e go ve rn m en t fro m in vo ki ng jud ic ia l pr oc ed ur es in

ob ta in in g a co nv ic ti on ” is a p ract ic e “ tra ceab le to Mag na [Car ta ]”). The Su pr em e 2 1

Co ur t— lo ng be fo re 19 89 —re co gn iz ed th is as well

. See, e.g ., Moo ne y v. Hol oh an , 29 4 U.S. 10 3, 11 2 (1 93 5) ( r e c o g ni zi ng a pr oc es s whi ch “ co nt riv ed a co nv ic ti on ”

vi ol at es “ fu nd am en ta l co nc e p t i o n s o f jus ti ce whi ch li e at th e ba se of ou r ci vi l an d

po li ti cal in st it ut io ns ”).

To pu t it si m

pl y , th is is no t a cas e li ke m an y Fo ur th Am en dm en t cas es , whe re

th e “ sp eci fic it y

of t he rul e is es pe ci al ly im po rta nt ” be cau se “ of

fic ers wil l oft en fin d

it di ffi cu lt to kn ow ho w” th e Co ns ti tu ti on ap pl ie s in “ th e pr eci se si tu at io n

en co un te red .” Dis tri ct of Co lu m bi a v. W es by, 13 8 S. Ct

. 57 7, 59 0 (2 01 8)

. In st ead

, th is is an “ ‘obv io us cas e,’” w h e r e t he “ un la wfu ln es s of th e [d ep ut ie s’] co nd uc t is

su ffi c i e n t l y cl ear.” Id

. The ev id en ce su pp or ts th e co nc lu si on th at th e de pu ti es

“ kn owi ng ly vi ol at e[d ], ” id

. at 58 9, th e du e p r o c e s s rig ht s of th e App el le es by

ap pl y in g “ syste m at ic pr es su re” to i mp l i c a te th e App el le es an d by “ pu rp os efu ll y ig no r[i ng ]” ex on erat in g ev id en ce. W hi te

, 69 6 F.3 d at 75 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it t e d )

. The il le ga li ty of th is was well -es ta bl is he d lo ng be fo re 19 89

. Thu s, ou r

pr io r de te rm in at io n ho ld s: qu al ifi ed im m un it y do es no t sh ie ld th e de pu ti es

. W es by,

1 3 8 S. Ct

. at 58 9 (h ol di ng qu al ifi ed im m un it y do es no t pr ot ect th e “p l a i n l y

in co m pe te nt or th os e who k no win gl y vi ol at e th e la w” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ). 2 2

It ha s be en no te d th at “ [b ]oth of th e Co ns ti tu ti on ’s Due Pro ces s Cl au se s reac h 2 1

ba ck to Mag na Cart a.” Obe rg efel l v. Hod ge s, 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 84

, 26 32 (2 01 5) (Sca li a, J., d is se nt in g) (co ll ect in g a ut ho rit ie s an d c as es ).

In a po st -tr ia l s ub m is si on , App el la nt s draw ou r at te nt io n to Man ue l v . Cit y 2 2

of Jo li et

, 13 7 S. Ct

. 91 1 (2 01 7)

. The re, th e Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at th e st art of le ga l

-2 0-IV.

W e no w tu rn to whe th er a ne w tri al is warra nt ed

. The de ni al of a ne w tri al by

th e di st ric t co ur t i s r e v ie wed “ fo r a cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n, wit h th e ke y qu es ti on
be in g whe th er a ne w tri al is ne ces sa ry to pr ev en t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce.” Bam fo rd

In c. v. Rege nt In s. Co., 82 2 F.3d 40 3, 41 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. The App el la nt s f i r s t a r g ue th at th e App el le es ha d an “ im pr op er an d

pr ejud ic ia l fo cu s on ‘actu al in no cen ce,’” an d th us th ey were de pr iv ed of th e rig ht to

a fai r tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th at arg um en t. W e rev ie w to en su re th e di st ric t

co ur t was wit hi n t he bo un ds of i ts di sc ret io n. Id

.

As a th res ho ld m at te r, we de fin e th e sc op e of ou r rev ie w. W hi le th e pa rti e s

were in st ru ct ed no t to arg ue “ act ua l in no c e n c e,” th e di st ric t co ur t di d al lo w th e App el le es to arg ue th at th e co nf es si on s m ad e du rin g th e co ur se of th is in ve st ig at io n

were fal s e

. A p pe ll an ts do no t ta ke is su e wit h th is on ap pe al

. And so th e ex is te nc e

of wit ne ss te st im on y th at go es to th e fal se ho od of th e co nf es si on s is no t gr ou nd s fo r

a ne w tri al

. App el la nt s do ta ke is su e wit h th ree act io ns un de rta ke n by on e at to rn ey

2 3

pr oc es s do es no t vi ti at e a cl ai m of un la wfu l de te nt io n un de r th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.
Bu t, it on ce ag ai n a f

f i rm ed th at “ on ce a tri al ha s oc cu rred

, th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t dr op s o ut .” Id . at 9 20 n.8

.

W it h on e ex cep ti on , t he wit ne ss te st im on y th at App el la nt s p oi nt to all go es 2 3

to th e fal se ho od of th e co nf es si on s. In ad di ti on , m

uc h of th e te st im on y co un se l po in ts

to wen t un ob

jecte d to at tri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. So co ny-Vacu um Oil Co

., 31 0 U.S.
15 0, 23 9 (1 94 0) (h ol di ng co un se l “ ca n n o t a s a ru le rem ai n si le nt

, in te rp os e no ob jecti on s, an d afte r a v erd ic t h as be en ret ur ne d s ei ze fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n t he po in t th at th e co m

m e n t s t o t h e jury were im pr op er an d pr ejud ic ia l” ). The on e pi ece of

te st im on y fro m App el le es ’ ex pe rt, Dr. Ri ch ard Leo, t ha t d id go to act ua l i nn oc en ce is no t p res erv ed fo r ou r rev ie w b ecau se App el la nt s’ c ou ns el was sp eci fic al ly as ke d
if sh e was m ov in g fo r a mi s t r i a l o n t ho se gr ou nd s an d sh e de cl in ed

. See Tr. 72 5.

In st ead

, co un se l ag reed to th e di st ric t co ur t’s rem ed y of ha vi ng th e rem ark s st ric ke n fro m th e reco rd

. See Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 46 (“ W he n th e ru li ng or or de r i s r e q u e s t e d or

m ad e, a pa rty ne ed on ly st at e th e act io n th at it wan ts th e co ur t to ta ke o r o b je ct s to

. . . .”). Eve n if it were pr es erv ed fo r ou r rev ie w, it wou ld no t be the ba si s for a ne w

-2 1-fo r th e App el le es du rin g op en in g an d cl os in g. Fi rs t, App el la nt s po in t to a st at em en t

m ad e by App el le es ’ co un se l du rin g op en in g th at “ [Ap pe ll an ts ] won ’t ev en
ack no wled ge th at [Ap pe ll ees ] are in no cen t.” Seco nd

, du ri ng cl osi ng, the sa m e la wy er

us ed a sl id e th at sa id “ in no cen t.” And

, fin al ly, co un se l as ke d th e App el le es an d th ei r

fam il ie s t o s ta nd du rin g c lo si ng arg um en ts

.

The fir st two act io ns were ti m el y ob jecte d to

. The la st act io n was no t ob jecte d

to at th e ti m e an d was on ly cite d in a m is tri al m ot io n ov er thr ee ho ur s afte r th e cas e

was su bm it te d to th e jury. It i s n ot pre se rv ed for ou r rev ie w. See Vent ur a v. Ky le

, 8 2 5 F

. 3 d 87 6, 88 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )(n ot in g th at whe re al le ge d m is co nd uc t oc cu rs
du rin g cl os in g ar g u ment

, “ co un se l

. . . sh ou ld [] m ak e hi s ob jecti on , ta ke hi s

ex cep ti on , or as k fo r rem ed ia l a c t i o n a t th e cl os e th ereo f an d be fo re th e cas e is

su bm it te d to th e jury” (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) ( i n t e r na l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ),

cert . den ie d, 1 37 S. Ct. 6 67 (20 17 ) .

In al l, we ex am in e whe th er (1 ) th e ref eren ce t o i nn oc en ce i n t he op en in g a nd
(2 ) th e u se of t he “ in no cen t” sl id e d ur in g c lo si ng warran t a n ew tr ia l.

A.

W he n th e act io ns an d st at em en ts by co un se l are su bm it te d as th e ba si s fo r a

ne w tri al

, we ex am in e fo ur fact or s whi le ke ep in g in m in d th at “ th e di st ric t co ur t is in

th e be st po si ti on to de te rm in e whe th er th e al le ge d erro r affe ct ed th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s

of an y pa rty su ffi ci en t t o war ran t a n ew tri al .” Town se nd v. Bayer C or p., 77 4 F.3 d

44 6, 46 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om i t t e d )

. Fi rs t, we co ns id er
whe th er th e act io ns were “ m in or ab erra ti on s m ad e in pa ss in g.” Ky le

, 82 5 F.3 d at 88 5
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Nex t, we ex am in e whe th er “ th e di st ric t co urt to ok

sp eci fic cu rat iv e act io n.” Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Thir d, we lo ok at

whe th er “ th e si ze of th e da m ag e award

. . . s ug ge st [s ] th at co un se l’s co m m en ts ha d

tri al for th e rea so ns we art ic ul at e in Sect io n IV.A.

-2 2-a pr ejud ic ia l effe ct .” Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

And

, fin al ly, we ex am in e th e ov eral l tri al reco rd —t he “ weig ht of th e ev id en ce”— to

de te rm in e “ whe th er th e im pr op er arg um en t de pr iv ed a p art y of a fai r tri al .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

In th is cas e, on ly th e fir st fact or weig hs in fav or of App el la nt s. In th ei r br ie f,
App el le es a d mi t th at “ act ua l in no cen ce was pr op erl y a da m ag es is su e,” whi ch

fo recl os es a co nc l u s i o n t h a t th e st at em en ts at is su e were si m pl y m ad e of

f th e cu ff.

Th e res t of th e fact or s, ho wev er, weig h ag ai ns t App el la nt s. The di st ric t c o u r t t o o k

sp eci fic cu rat iv e act io ns

. Fo r ex am pl e, aft er th e “ in no cen t” s l id e wen t up du rin g
cl os in g, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed : “ Lad ie s an d ge nt le m en , y ou ’ve be en in st ru ct ed th at

it ’s no t y ou r res po ns ib il it y an d y ou sh ou ld no t try to de te rm in e whe th er pl ai nt iff s are

gu il ty or in no cen t. Tak e th at th in g do wn p l e as e.” See Tr. 40 42 ; se e al so Tr. 45
(s im il ar in st ru ct io n gi ve n in op en in g)

. The sp eci fic cu rat iv e in st ru ct io ns in th is cas e 2 4

wen t be y on d th e si m

pl e “ rem in de r th at co un se l’s arg um en ts are no t ev id en ce” th at we

ha ve pre vi ou sl y

fou nd in su ffi ci en t. See , e.g., Gil st er v . Prim eb an k, 7 47 F.3 d 1 00 7,

10 12 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 4 ) (fi nd in g ge ne ral rem in de r ab ou t co un se l’s arg um en ta ti on

in su ffi ci en t as a cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n)

. The si ze of th e award in th is cas e, as well

, do es

no t in di cat e pr ejud ic e. It was bel ow wha t App el le es ’ co un se l arg ue d fo r in cl os in g,

su gg es ti ng th at th e rem ark s an d sl id e di d no t in fla m e th e pa ss io ns of th e jur y. At

cl os in g, App el le es ’ co un se l as ke d th e jury to award $5 00 ,00 0 pe r y ear sp en t in pr is on

fo r each in di vi du al A p p e l l ee. No in di vi du al App el le e rece iv ed an award eq ua li ng $5 00 ,00 0 pe r y ear i n p ris on —i n fa ct , so m e, li ke Jo se ph W hi te , we re award ed su m s
si gn ifi can tl y

les s t ha n t ha t. 2 5

The di st ric t cou rt san ct io ne d th e at to rn ey in vo lv ed

. In ad di ti on , App el la nt s 2 4

di d no t walk a w ay fro m tri al wit h cl ean ha nd s: th ey , to o, were rep rimand ed du rin g

c lo si ng fo r br in gi ng up “ act ua l in no cen ce.” See Tr. 40 85 -8 6 (d is tri ct co ur t t w i c e in st ru ct in g ju ry

no t t o c on si de r “ gu il t o r in no cen ce” d ur in g Ap pe ll an ts ’ cl os in g)

.

The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y no te s th at th e ov eral l award pa le s in co m pa ris on 2 5

to ot he r si m il ar ca se s.

-2 3-In th e en d, we are c on vi nc ed th at a “ m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce,” Reg en t In s. Co

.,

82 2 F.3 d at 41 0, di d no t o c c ur be cau se of th e ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce in th is cas e.
Unl ik e Ky le , t hi s was no t si m pl y a “ cred ib il it y co nt es t” be twee n th e App el le es an d
App el la nt s. 8 25 F.3 d at 88 5; se e al so Pri m eb an k, 7 47 F.3d at 1 01 3 (f in di ng reco rd

in di cat ed rem ark s ha d pr ejud ic ia l effe ct whe re th e di st ric t co ur t no te d it was a “ ‘tou gh

cas e’” th at “ ‘cou ld go ei th er wa y’” ). The reco rd he re is rep le te wit h co nc ret e

hi st or ic al e vi de nc e—a ffi da vi ts

, m em os , in te rv ie w tra ns cri pt s— su pp or ti ng th e App el le es ’ cl ai m s an d su pp le m en ti ng th e cred ib le te st im on y in th is cas e. W e de cl in e

to di st ur b th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t th a t a n e w tri al is no t warra nt ed be cau se of

al le ge d i m

pr op er ac ti on s an d re m ark s.

B.

The App el la nt s’ sec on d b as is for a ne w tri al is th at th e rec kl es s i nv es ti ga ti on

in st ru ct io n im

pr op erl y in cl ud ed refe ren ce to th e ga th eri ng of “ un rel ia bl e” ev id en ce.
The y arg ue th at th is al lo wed th e jury to fin d li ab il it y on th e ba si s of ne gl ig en ce, rat he r

th an reck le ss ne ss

. Onl y if an erro r in th e jury ins tru ct io ns “ m is le d t he jury or ha d a

pr ob ab le effe ct on it s ve rd ic t” wil l we or de r a ne w tri al on th at b a si s. Acu it y v.

Jo hn so n, 7 76 F.3d 58 8, 5 96 (8t h C ir. 2 01 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Here, th ere was no erro r. The in st ru ct io n ex pl ic it ly st at ed th at th e ju r y must

fin d

, as a req ui red el em en t, th at th e “ Defen da nt act ed reck le ss ly in ga th eri ng su ch
[fal se or u nr el ia bl e] evi de nc e.” It th en went on to de fin e “ reck le ss ly” as “ whe n t he

pe rs on pr oc eed s w i t ho ut he ed or co nc ern fo r th e co ns eq ue nc es .” On ou r rev ie w,

“ jury in st ru ct io ns m

us t be read as a who le .” Ry th er v. KARE 11

, 10 8 F.3 d 83 2, 84 6
(8 th Ci r. 1 9 9 7 ) (en ba nc ). In or de r to acce pt App el la nt s’ a rg um en t he re, we wou ld

ha ve to be li ev e th at juro rs st op pe d “ re ad in g aft er th e co m pl ai ne d- of se nt en ce.” Id

. As in Ry th er, we reject th is arg um en t. Thi s co ur t “ pr es um e[s ] juri es to be co m po se d

of pr ud en t, in te ll ig en t in di vi du al s, an d we wil l no t sp ecu la te whe th er juro rs di sr eg ard

th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io ns of la w or th ei r oa th s.” Uni te d St at es v. Harp er, 46 6 F.3 d 63 4,

64 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). The in tri cat e an d th ou gh tfu l ve rd ic t in th is cas e on ly st ren gt he ns

th at pr es um

pt io n. W e de cl in e to or de r a ne w tri al on th e ba si s of th e jury in st ru ct io n.

-2 4-V.

To co nc lu de

, we no te th at th ere are certa in types of la w en fo rcem en t co nd uc t

th at “ do m or e th an of

fen d so m e fas ti di ou s sq ue am is hn es s or pr iv at e se nt im en ta li sm
ab ou t co m

ba tt in g c rime” an d whi ch th e Co ns ti tu ti on fo rb id s. Ro ch in v. Ca li fo rn ia

, 34 2 U.S. 1 65 , 1 72 (1 95 2)

. Ove r th e co ur se of no w f ou r op in i o n s , a nd ou r m

ul ti pl e

m et ic ul ou s rev ie w s o f t h e ev id en ce pr es en te d, we ha ve reco gn iz ed th is cas e is an

ex am pl e of su ch co nd uc t— an d a jury ha s agre ed

. Fo r th is

, § 19 83 of fers a m eas ur e

of re c o u r s e

. In de ed

, th e on ly m eas ur e of reco ur se : “ [f]or pe op le in [Ap pe ll ees ’]

s h o es , it is da m ag es or no th in g.” Bi ve ns v. Si x Unk no wn Nam ed Age nt s of Fed

. Bu reau of Na rco ti cs , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 , 41 0 (1 97 1) (Harl an , J., co nc ur rin g)

.

Hav in g c aref

ul ly revi ewed th e rec or d a nd cla im s o n a pp eal , we affi rm

.

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

-2 5-