Opinion ID: 811594
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Coerced Confession and Evidence Fabrication

Text: Intentionally or recklessly failing to investigate other leads or manufacturing false evidence may shock the conscience and can violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. See Winslow, __ F.3d at __, __, 2012 WL 4856169, at ; Wilson v. Lawrence Cnty., Mo., 260 F.3d 946, 955-57 (8th Cir. 2001). We have referenced areas of “reckless investigation,” which include: (1) coercing a suspect’s confession; (2) “purposely ignor[ing] evidence suggesting . . . innocen[ce]”; and (3) “systemic pressure to implicate [a suspect] in the face of evidence to the contrary.” Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833-35 (8th Cir. 2008) 9 Livers and Sampson were not tried. A Fifth Amendment violation of their protection against self-incrimination, based upon a coerced confession, only arises when the coerced statements are used in the criminal case. See Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760, 767 (2003) (plurality opinion); id. at 779 (Souter, J., concurring in the judgment); Winslow v. Smith, __ F.3d __, __, Nos. 11-2882, 11-2883, 11-2884, 112903, 2012 WL 4856169, at  n.4 (8th Cir. Oct. 15, 2012). -19- (citing Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 648 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (Moran I), and Wilson, 260 F.3d at 955-56). Negligence and even gross negligence is not enough because the state action must be “truly egregious and extraordinary” to shock the conscience, Winslow, __ F.3d at __, __, 2012 WL 4856169, at  (quoting Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 557 (8th Cir. 2012)) (internal quotation marks omitted), and so severe as to amount to “brutal and inhumane abuse of official power,” id. (quoting Golden ex rel. Balch v. Anders, 324 F.3d 650, 653 (8th Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The “reckless[ness] standard normally contains a subjective component.” Wilson, 260 F.3d at 956 n.9. Law enforcement “must be faithful to the overriding interest that ‘justice shall be done.’” Id. at 957 (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110-11 (1976)). The district court found “a showing that evidence was fabricated,” as well as some evidence Livers’ confession was coerced and appellants failed to investigate other leads. The district court noted whether appellants were sufficiently culpable to be liable under § 1983 was a fact question for the jury. We generally agree.

Livers claims the Cass appellants and NSP appellants are liable for coercing his confession. Coercing a confession violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Wilson, 260 F.3d at 952. Whether particular interrogation techniques are unconstitutionally coercive depends on the totality of the circumstances, including the officers’ conduct and the accused’s characteristics. See id. at 952-53. In Wilson, we determined officers violated the clearly established due process rights of a mentally retarded man when they (1) had reason to know Wilson was mentally retarded; (2) interrogated him for over four hours; (3) never left him alone; (4) interrogated him without any friend, relative, or advisor present; (5) falsely claimed they had strong incriminating evidence; (6) promised leniency if Wilson -20- confessed and said Wilson would be found guilty if he did not; (7) “used threatening tones and language”; (8) refused to accept Wilson’s protestations of innocence, threatening to use them to secure harsher penalties; and, (9) “[o]f particular concern,” obtained the confession using leading questions that provided details about the crime. Id. Here, the district court refused to grant qualified immunity on Livers’ confession claim, citing evidence Livers’ confession was coerced and “some dispute about whether or when the defendants knew or should have known of [Livers’] mental deficiencies.” As in Wilson, there is evidence Livers is mentally retarded and Investigators Lambert, Schenck, and O’Callaghan knew or should have known Livers was mentally retarded.10 A forensic psychologist opined Livers showed signs of mental retardation during the interrogation. For example, when Livers was told to “stand up” if he were a man, he literally stood up from his chair. Livers told Investigators Lambert and Schenk he was “dumb as a brick.” Investigator Schenck admitted Livers “appeared to be having difficulty understanding some of the questions,” and the investigators were told before the April 25 interrogation of Livers that Livers was “slow,” “different,” “mentally off,” and “immature for his age.” 10 The NSP appellants contend there is no fact issue because the veracity of the DVDs of Livers’ confession are undisputed. Though the veracity of the DVDs is undisputed, conflicting inferences can be drawn from the actions and statements recorded therein, and the parties dispute both the extent of Livers’ mental impairment and appellants’ knowledge of it. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Livers and make all reasonable inferences in his favor. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. To the extent appellants contend any issue of fact is not genuine, we cannot reach this issue. See id. at 319-20. -21- Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan interrogated Livers for approximately six and a half hours before Livers confessed, significantly longer than Wilson’s four-hour interrogation. See id. at 952. Like Wilson, Livers did not have an attorney, relative, or other advisor present during the interviews. The investigators told Livers the polygraph irrefutably indicated Livers’ guilt. Investigators promised to help Livers if he confessed and told Livers he would be executed if he did not. Investigators Schenck and Lambert ridiculed Livers’ protestations of innocence, which they threatened to use against Livers. In doing so, the investigators “used threatening tones and language.” See id. at 953. Livers denied knowledge of or involvement in the murders more than eighty times before he began to confess. Investigators Lambert and Schenck obtained Livers’ confession almost entirely through the use of leading questions that provided the details about the murders. The NSP appellants attempt to distinguish Wilson, noting the officers picked up Wilson “under the pretense of having him identify a lost wallet,” id. at 950, whereas Livers consented to giving an interview and taking a polygraph exam. This distinction is significant, but these are fact issues and do not directly affect our qualified immunity legal determination. Although Livers, like Wilson, was advised of his Miranda rights, “[a]dvising a suspect of his rights does not automatically mean that any subsequent confession is voluntary . . . , particularly when [the officers] know the suspect is unlikely to fully understand those rights.” Id. at 953. Whether Livers understood his Miranda rights is a disputed fact for the jury in this case. The cases the Cass appellants cite to support their position that Livers confessed voluntarily are distinguishable. The suspect in Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2004), was questioned for only one hour before confessing and the plaintiff did not show the confession was obtained through leading questions that provided information about the crime. Berghuis v. Thompkins, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 2250, 2259-64 (2010), is inapposite because it addressed whether a suspect invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda, not whether his rights to -22- substantive due process were violated or whether his confession was the product of police coercion. The Cass appellants also cite a long list of cases in which a court found a confession voluntary even though the suspect had a low IQ. In all but one of these cases, there was no evidence of police overreaching, unlike in Livers’ case. See United States v. Makes Room for Them, 49 F.3d 410, 412-15 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Chischilly, 30 F.3d 1144, 1151 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 875-78 (9th Cir. 1991); Derrick v. Peterson, 924 F.2d 813, 81719 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Macklin, 900 F.2d 948, 950-52 (6th Cir. 1990); Moore v. Dugger, 856 F.2d 129, 131-32 (11th Cir. 1988); Dunkins v. Thigpen, 854 F.2d 394, 399 (11th Cir. 1988); Winfrey v. Wyrick, 836 F.2d 406, 410-12 (8th Cir. 1987); Vance v. Bordenkircher, 692 F.2d 978, 981 (4th Cir. 1982); Hall v. Wolff, 539 F.2d 1146, 1149-52 (8th Cir. 1976); Coney v. Wyrick, 532 F.2d 94, 97-98 (8th Cir. 1976); Fairchild v. Lockhart, 744 F. Supp. 1429, 1437, 1449 (E.D. Ark. 1989). The remaining case cited by the Cass appellants, Sumpter v. Nix, 863 F.2d 563, 565 (8th Cir. 1988), included a long interrogation and manipulation of the suspect’s emotions. However, there is no indication any of the other factors present in Wilson and this case—such as a confession procured using leading questions and isolating the suspect from any advisor during the interrogation—existed in Sumpter. See id.; Wilson, 260 F.3d at 952-53. “[S]tate officials [may not] cherry-pick cases that address individual potentially coercive tactics, isolated one from the other, in order to insulate themselves when they have combined all of those tactics in an effort to overbear an accused’s will.” Wilson, 260 F.3d at 953. Finally, the NSP appellants argue the first interview, before the polygraph, was not coercive. If true, this is not determinative of Livers’ claim because the conduct of Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan after the polygraph, which led to Livers’ confession, arguably was coercive. The alleged actions of Investigators Schenck, Lambert, and O’Callaghan during Livers’ interrogation potentially violated a right that was clearly established by -23- Wilson in 2001, well before Livers was interrogated. See id. at 952-53. Though fact and credibility issues about the appellants’ culpability remain, a reasonable officer would have known the alleged conduct violated Livers’ rights as described in Wilson. See id. The district court properly denied Investigator Schenck’s and the NSP appellants’ motions for summary judgment on this claim. There is no evidence Sergeant Weyers was involved in the interrogation, but she may be liable as a coconspirator for coercing Livers’ confession, if Livers proves a conspiracy and a coerced confession. See Slavin v. Curry, 574 F.2d 1256, 1263 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting defendants who conspire to deprive a plaintiff of his or her constitutional rights are jointly liable for their co-conspirators’ acts in furtherance of the conspiracy), overruled on other grounds, Sparks v. Duval Cnty. Ranch Co., 604 F.2d 976, 978 (5th Cir. 1979); see also infra section II.G.1 (discussing Livers’ conspiracy claim).
Sampson contends on appeal that appellants violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by coercing Livers’ confession. To the extent Sampson raised this issue in the district court,11 the district court erred in denying qualified immunity on this claim because a plaintiff does not have standing to claim a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation based on someone else’s coerced confession. See van Leeuwen v. United States, 868 F.2d 300, 301-02 (8th Cir. 1989). 11 Sampson arguably waived any such claim by not clearly raising it in his amended complaint. See Hulsey v. Astrue, 622 F.3d 917, 924 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting an issue not raised below is waived). See also discussion, supra n.9 (explaining a Fifth Amendment self-incrimination violation only occurs when the covered statements are used against the speaker in a criminal prosecution). -24-
It was clearly established by 2006 that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of due process is violated by “the manufacture of . . . false evidence” in order “to falsely formulate a pretense of probable cause.” Moran I, 296 F.3d at 647; see Moran v. Clarke, 359 F.3d 1058, 1060-61 (8th Cir. 2004) (Moran II); see also Wilson, 260 F.3d at 957. Livers and Sampson contend all appellants conspired with each other and with Commander Kofoed to fabricate evidence against them, in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. Livers and Sampson both specifically allege (1) Commander Kofoed “planted Wayne Stock’s blood on a swab purportedly taken from” Will’s car; (2) Investigators Lambert and Schenck coerced Reid into falsely implicating Livers and Sampson; and (3) Investigator O’Callaghan and Sergeant Weyers attempted to coerce Paulding into falsely saying Livers admitted to murdering the Stocks. Livers also contends Investigators Lambert and Schenck coerced Fester into implicating Livers. The district court found, without further elaboration, “there was a showing that evidence was fabricated” against Livers and Sampson and “[t]he extent of [the Cass appellants’ and NSP appellants’] knowledge of, or complicity in, that act is a question of fact for the jury.” In a qualified immunity interlocutory appeal, this finding is enough. For example, Livers and Sampson presented evidence allowing a jury to infer Commander Kofoed planted blood evidence in Will’s car. One can infer from this evidence that Commander Kofoed intended to implicate Livers and Sampson, men with close familial ties to Will. Evidence indicates Livers’ confession was coerced. Investigator Schenck suggested Sampson provided Livers with the murder weapon and ammunition, and Investigators Schenck and Lambert pressured Livers to change his story to place Sampson in the Stock home at the time of the murders. Some evidence also intimated Investigators Schenck and Lambert pressured Fester and Reid to change their stories to implicate Livers and Sampson in the murders. It is reasonable to infer Sergeant Weyers may have threatened Paulding to encourage Paulding to say Livers had admitted to the murders. A jury could infer Investigator -25- O’Callaghan’s involvement in Livers’ allegedly flawed polygraph examination and presence on the trip to Texas to interview Paulding shows he helped develop the strategy for interrogating Livers and Paulding or otherwise was a co-conspirator. Finally, there is testimony that Investigators Schenck and Lambert frequently asked DCCSI employees to retest items when initial tests did not link Livers or Sampson to the crimes, and one DCCSI employee reported feeling pressured to “find something.” The district court properly denied summary judgment to the Cass appellants and NSP appellants on this claim based upon the allegations, with supporting evidence, regarding their individual actions, and, to the extent Livers and Sampson prove a conspiracy, based upon the actions of their alleged co-conspirators. See Slavin, 574 F.2d at 1263, see also infra section II.G.1 (discussing Livers’ and Sampson’s conspiracy claims).
Livers does not allege Sheriff Dunning directly participated in any alleged constitutional violation, but rather claims Sheriff Dunning is liable in a supervisory capacity for Commander Kofoed’s and others’ misconduct. The district court made only two findings specifically about Sheriff Dunning or the DCSO, noting there was evidence suggesting (1) DCSO employees knew of Commander Kofoed’s “administrative lapses;” and (2) Sheriff “Dunning’s failure to train, supervise, and discipline the” DCCSI staff, including Commander Kofoed, “contributed to the evidence fabrication and resulted in the concealing of evidence from [Livers], his counsel, and the prosecutor.”
Sheriff Dunning cannot be liable for Commander Kofoed’s actions based on respondeat superior. See Wagner v. Jones, 664 F.3d 259, 275 (8th Cir. 2011). Sheriff Dunning may be liable under § 1983 if he (1) had “notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates”; (2) was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized those acts; and (3) failed to take “sufficient remedial action”; -26- (4) proximately causing injury to Livers. Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Jane Doe A. v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis Cnty., 901 F.2d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 1990)). In order to show deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, Livers must allege and ultimately prove Sheriff Dunning “had notice that the training procedures and supervision were inadequate and likely to result in a constitutional violation.” Id. The district court denied Sheriff Dunning summary judgment under this theory, but did not cite any specific reasoning or evidence. We review the record to see which facts the district court may have assumed. See Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. In Andrews, we concluded there was no “patently obvious need . . . to specifically train officers not to rape young women.” Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1077. Similarly, Sheriff Dunning faced no “patently obvious need” to train DCCSI employees—whose job was to “identify, document, collect, and preserve evidence from crime scenes”—not to fabricate evidence. See id. Any reasonable DCCSI employee would know fabricating evidence is unacceptable. Livers maintains “Dunning’s failure to train his employees in their duty to disclose exculpatory material resulted in the fabrication of evidence against” Livers. Livers does not causally link this alleged failure to Commander Kofoed’s misconduct. As such, this alleged training failure cannot be a basis for Sheriff’s Dunning’s liability. Livers also contends Sheriff “Dunning’s failure to adequately supervise DCCSI resulted in the violation of [Livers’] constitutional right . . . not to have evidence fabricated against him.” Livers argues Sheriff Dunning should be held liable because Sheriff Dunning admitted he left day-to-day supervision of the DCCSI to Commander Kofoed. Livers maintains Sheriff Dunning should have known Commander Kofoed would abuse his position by fabricating evidence because of (1) alleged unrelated dishonesty by Commander Kofoed; (2) Kush’s complaints about Commander Kofoed to her supervisors; and (3) Commander “Kofoed’s fishy 2006 public statement that -27- his finding of Wayne Stock’s blood in Will’s car may have been the result of contamination.” To impose supervisory liability, other misconduct must be very similar to the conduct giving rise to liability. Cf. Jane Doe A, 901 F.2d at 646 n.4 (holding notice of an employee’s sexual misconduct with adults did not provide notice of his sexual misconduct with children). Notice of allegations Commander Kofoed committed dishonest acts unrelated to handling evidence is not sufficient to support Sheriff Dunning’s liability for a failure to supervise. Cf. id. The district court’s finding that some DCSO employees knew of Commander Kofoed’s “administrative lapses” is legally insufficient to impose supervisory liability. See Andrews, 98 F.3d at 645 (requiring the defendant to have had notice). Nor does our own review of the record reveal notice to Sheriff Dunning. In the internal affairs report covering Commander Kofoed, none of the employees interviewed reported suspecting Commander Kofoed of misconduct in any investigation. The same report concluded there was no evidence Kofoed planted evidence in the Stock homicide investigation. Nor was Sheriff Dunning notified of Kush’s concerns about Commander Kofoed’s handling of evidence until after the Stock investigation was over. Without guidance from the district court on what facts and assumptions it relied upon for its decision, we undertook the “cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving part[ies], likely assumed.” Johnson, 515 U.S. at 319. Our cumbersome review of more than 65 bound volumes and 40 video DVDs drew a blank. There is no evidence, or reasonable inference from any evidence, indicating Sheriff Dunning had notice Commander Kofoed may have mishandled evidence in this or any other investigation until after the Stock investigation ended, too late to prevent injury to Livers. -28- Livers also alleges Sheriff Dunning’s supervision was inadequate because he did not properly investigate and discipline DCCSI employees for misconduct. Livers contends Sheriff Dunning never disciplined DCCSI employees for possible mishandling of evidence, which made Commander Kofoed think he would not be punished for planting evidence. This assertion is mere speculation and argument, and is not a basis for denying qualified immunity. See Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting a party cannot withstand summary judgment based on “speculation, conjecture, or fantasy” (quoting Moody v. St. Charles Cnty., 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Brown, 518 F.3d at 558 (when reviewing a district court’s denial of summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity, “we do not resort to speculation.”). Livers’ final contention—that Sheriff Dunning knew Captain Olson instructed Commander Kofoed not to correct Commander Kofoed’s report about the date he “discovered” the blood evidence in Will’s car—is similarly unavailing. Captain Olson did not share this information with Sheriff Dunning until March 2008, long after Sheriff Dunning could have prevented injury to Livers. Again, the record does not support any finding that Sheriff Dunning received notice of the alleged misconduct in time for any failure to act by Sheriff Dunning to have injured Livers. Sheriff Dunning is entitled to qualified immunity both on Livers’ failure-totrain claim and his failure-to-supervise claim.
Livers also cites City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 127 (1988), and Speer v. City of Wynne, Ark., 276 F.3d 980, 987 (8th Cir. 2002), for his claim Sheriff Dunning should be liable because he ratified Commander Kofoed’s fabrication of evidence after it occurred. Praprotnik and Speer are inapposite because they involve municipal—not individual—liability. See Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127; Speer, 276 -29- F.3d at 987. Applying those cases would violate the principle that a supervisor who does not directly participate in an employee’s constitutional violation can only be liable for the violation when it was caused by the supervisor’s failure to train or supervise his or her employees properly. See Wagner, 664 F.3d at 275.