Opinion ID: 789984
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Law Civil Conspiracy Claim

Text: 36 LaCresha has also asserted a claim under state law, contending that the defendants conspired to deprive her of her Fifth Amendment rights. The elements of a civil conspiracy claim in Texas are: (1) two or more persons; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful, overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result. 54 A plaintiff asserting such a claim must prove that the defendants conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose or used unlawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose. 55 37 The defendants counter that, under Texas law, they are officially immune from suit for civil conspiracy. 56 In this interlocutory appeal, we have jurisdiction to hear the defendants' claim of official immunity because Texas law, like the federal doctrine, provides a true immunity from suit and not a simple defense to liability. 57 As official immunity is thus an affirmative defense, a state official seeking summary judgment on such grounds must conclusively prove each element of the defense. 58 38 Government officials in Texas are officially immune from liability for the performance of their (1) discretionary duties (2) in good faith (3) as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority. 59 A discretionary function — as distinguished from a ministerial duty, which requires rote obedience to orders or performance of a function to which the actor has no choice — involves personal deliberation, decision and judgment. 60 An officer acts in good faith if a reasonably prudent officer, under the same circumstances, could have believed that his actions were correct. 61 An officer acts within the scope of his authority when he discharges the duties generally assigned to him. 62 39 The district court ruled, and LaCresha does not dispute, that the remaining defendants were performing discretionary functions and acting within the scope of their authority vis-a-vis her interrogation. That leaves only the question whether they acted in good faith. 40 To obtain official immunity on summary judgment, an official must prove that a reasonably prudent official might have believed that his action was appropriate under the circumstances. 63 Even if an official's actions were taken negligently, that would not be sufficient to defeat a showing of good faith. 64 The test for good faith is objective and is substantially derived from the test for good faith in a qualified immunity claim for federal constitutional violations. 65 41 In light of our holding that the defendants are immune from prosecution for LaCresha's Fifth Amendment constitutional claim because they did not act unreasonably according to clearly established law, we also determine, by conducting the analogous state law inquiry under Texas state law, 66 that immunity bars LaCresha's civil conspiracy claim. As we have now determined, for purposes of the Fifth Amendment inquiry, that the officers did not conceal from the Texas trial court any of the circumstances surrounding LaCresha's interrogation and, therefore, that they did not cause the violation of her rights, we are constrained to hold that they acted in good faith for purposes of Texas official immunity. A reasonable officer, under the circumstances, could have believed that what he was doing would not violate a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights — certainly, if none of the officials could cause a violation of those rights, none could conspire to cause such a violation, particularly in view of our determination that the officials properly presented evidence of their interrogation of LaCresha to the Texas trial court. Therefore, the defendants are entitled to immunity from LaCresha's state law conspiracy claim. 42 Further, our determination that the defendants did not commit an actionable violation with respect to LaCresha's Fifth Amendment violation bars a claim of civil conspiracy based on that violation, as [g]enerally, if an act by one person cannot give rise to a cause of action, then the same act cannot give rise to a cause of action if done pursuant to an agreement between several persons. 67 Although LaCresha did suffer a violation of her constitutional rights, our determination that none of the state officials could have proximately caused this violation means that none have committed a tortious act. As we conclude that LaCresha's claims against these defendants are unavailing, we reverse the district court, and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. 43 The importance of deterring the improper obtaining of confessions, however, cannot be gainsaid. A deliberate, voluntary confession of guilt is among the most effectual proofs in the law, and constitutes the strongest evidence against the party making it that can be given of the facts stated in such confession. 68 Justice White called a voluntary confession the most damaging form of evidence and noted that [e]ven the testimony of an eyewitness may be less reliable than the defendant's own confession. 69 Confession evidence (regardless of how it was obtained) is so biasing that juries will convict on the basis of confession alone, even when no significant or credible evidence confirms the disputed confession and considerable significant and credible evidence disconfirms it. 70 44 A voluntary confession merits credence because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt. 71 In diametric opposition, an involuntary confession constitutes evidence entitled to little weight, as it is likely to be unreliable. 72 45 The privilege against self-incrimination is, of course, related to the question of the safeguards necessary to assure that admissions or confessions are reasonably trustworthy, that they are not the mere fruits of fear or coercion, but are reliable expressions of the truth ... coercion is thought to carry with it the danger of unreliability. 73 46 Involuntary confessions also affront society's deep-rooted feeling that ... in the end, life and liberty can be as much endangered from illegal methods used to convict those thought to be criminals as from the actual criminals themselves. 74 These principles are doubly true in cases such as this one, in which the suspect is a young child whose statements are more likely to be the product of fear, ignorance, fantasy, or despair. 75 47 Nonetheless, the independent roles of police officers, prosecutors, and judges operate in this context to prevent individuals who have suffered violations of their Fifth Amendment rights from recovering for their damages, absent a showing that a neutral intermediary, such as a judge, did not have all pertinent information surrounding an interrogation before him when deciding a confession's admissibility. Therefore summary judgment in favor of the defendants is appropriate.