United States Ninth Circuit

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising after plaintiffs served nearly thirteen years in state prison for a murder of which both were declared factually innocent by the courts, partial denial of defendants-homicide inspectors' motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) Brady imposes a duty on both prosecutors and police officers to disclose exculpatory evidence; 2) the district court properly rejected inspectors' argument that bad faith is required to establish a Brady violation; 3) inspectors were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to their failure to disclose certain exculpatory statements; 4) they also were not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity with respect to a confession; and 5) qualified immunity was properly denied with respect to a claim regarding a Secret Witness Program request.

Appellate Information

• Argued 06/12/2007
• Decided 12/08/2008
• Published 12/08/2008

Judges

• TASHIMA, Circuit Judge:, Before:  MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and SIDNEY R. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• James A. Quadra, Moscone, Emblidge & Quadra, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for defendants-appellants Prentice Earl Sanders and Napoleon Hendrix., Elliot R. Peters, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee John Tennison., John H. Scott, The Scott Law Firm, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee Antoine Goff.