Opinion ID: 2982360
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ferguson’s Appeal

Text: Though Ferguson devotes much of his argument to LeFever’s failure to plead this fabrication claim in her amended complaint, we limit our interlocutory review to the immunity defenses decided by the district court. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 (1985) (“An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations actually state a claim.”). We exercise interlocutory jurisdiction over the denial of absolute and qualified immunity “to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” Id. at 530; see also Leech v. DeWeese, 689 F.3d 538, 541 (6th Cir. 2012). Like most legal questions, we review the matter de novo. Gregory, 444 F.3d at 737. -6- Case Nos. 13-3935, 13-4075 LeFever v. Ferguson Absolute immunity shields all testimony given in judicial proceedings, including perjured testimony. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 329–31, 341–45 (1983); Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1001 (6th Cir. 1999). Deeply rooted in common law, testimonial immunity protects the integrity of the trial process by preventing witnesses from self-censorship out of fear of future liability. Briscoe, 460 U.S. at 333. But it offers no protection to pretrial conduct, including the fabrication of evidence later adopted in trial testimony; that receives only qualifiedimmunity protection. Gregory, 444 F.3d at 738–39. The district court rejected Ferguson’s absolute-immunity defense because LeFever purported to target pretrial conduct, but it failed to consider separately the immunity’s application to the fabrication claim. Importantly, the court identified only one piece of evidence demonstrating fabrication: the 2012 deposition testimony where Ferguson recants his 1990 trial testimony regarding the rectal administration of arsenic. (R. 141, Op. & Order at 20.)2 Accepting this finding, the alleged fabrication occurred at LeFever’s trial. And, as LeFever conceded at oral argument, absolute immunity shields Ferguson’s trial testimony as a matter of law. (O.A. at 14:35–40.) Attempting to demonstrate pretrial fabrication (so as to avoid the absolute immunity bar), LeFever argues that Ferguson advanced the same rectal-administration theory in the 1989 supplemental toxicology report. But the supplemental report states only that “arsenic may also 2 As he did before the district court, Ferguson attempts to explain away the inconsistencies between the 2012 deposition and his trial testimony. In a supplemental affidavit, he blames confusion and poor memory for his deposition statements and adheres to his 1990 trial testimony regarding arsenic poisoning. (See R. 124-1, Ferguson Suppl. Aff. ¶¶ 25–28.) We cannot settle this factual dispute. For purposes of this appeal, we draw all reasonable inferences in LeFever’s favor and accept the district court’s conclusion that a fair reading of the 2012 deposition supports LeFever’s claim that Ferguson recanted the forensic opinion provided in his trial testimony. See, e.g., Younes v. Pellerito, 739 F.3d 885, 888 (6th Cir. 2014). -7- Case Nos. 13-3935, 13-4075 LeFever v. Ferguson have been administered rectally.” (R. 95-1, Ferguson Aff. Ex. F, 1/12/89 Suppl. Toxicology Report at 3 (emphasis added).) Unlike his trial testimony, Ferguson’s supplemental report offers no opinion as to the likely route of arsenic administration, but recognizes a possible route. The distinction matters when we reexamine what Ferguson’s 2012 deposition testimony says: Q: You’ve testified about the two ways to get [arsenic] into his body, one orally and one rectally, did you reach an opinion as to . . . which way was more likely? A: With respect to arsenic, no. ... Q: . . . just to follow up on some of my questions about arsenic. Is it the case then that you can’t testify to a scientific probability that the arsenic was inserted into Mr. LeFever through his rectum? A: That’s correct. Q: And you really can’t state to a scientific probability how it got in there? A: That’s correct. Q: And did you hold that opinion back in 1988 as well? A: Yes. Q: And at the time of Ms. LeFever’s trial? A: Yes. (R. 91, 2012 Ferguson Dep. at 194, 200.) These deposition excerpts highlighted by LeFever demonstrate that Ferguson: (1) had no opinion as to whether oral or rectal administration of arsenic was “more likely”; (2) could not “state to a scientific probability how it got in there”; and (3) had the same opinion—i.e., no scientific opinion—at the time of her trial. Each of these statements, addressing likelihoods and probabilities, calls into question his 1990 trial testimony opining to “a reasonable scientific -8- Case Nos. 13-3935, 13-4075 LeFever v. Ferguson certainty” that someone inserted arsenic into William’s rectum, but none discredits the supplemental report’s conclusion that the “arsenic may . . . have been administered” that way. Tellingly, LeFever offers no evidence contradicting the supplemental report’s predicate facts for this hypothesis: “very high arsenic levels in the dried feces,” and the absence of “any pathologic sign of gastric erosion . . . consistent with an oral dose.” (R. 95-1, Ferguson Aff. Ex. F, 1/12/89 Suppl. Toxicology Report at 3.) Thus, no evidence demonstrates that Ferguson fabricated the rectal-administration-of-arsenic hypothesis as it appeared in the supplemental report. At most, LeFever’s highlighted evidence suggests that Ferguson perjured himself by embellishing this arsenic theory in his trial testimony. Because she offers no evidence of pretrial conduct supporting her fabrication claim, the district court erred in denying Ferguson absolute immunity on this claim. We therefore reverse this aspect of the district court’s judgment.3