Lester v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 20 January 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-5011,20-5011
• Citation: 986 F.3d 599
• Parties: Duzuan LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith ROBERTS, Detective, in his individual capacity; Louisville Metro Government, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

986 F.3d 599

Duzuan LESTER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Keith ROBERTS, Detective, in his individual capacity; Louisville Metro Government, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-5011

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 21, 2020

Decided and Filed: January 20, 2021

ARGUED: David N. Ward, ADAMS LANDENWICH & WALTON, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. J. Denis Ogburn, JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: David N. Ward, ADAMS LANDENWICH & WALTON, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. J. Denis Ogburn, JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

The demands on government increase the more it intrudes into its people's liberty. The government, for example, must meet a lower standard to indict and detain criminal defendants before trial (probable cause) than the standard it must meet to convict and imprison them after trial (proof beyond a reasonable doubt). See Draper v. United States , 358 U.S. 307, 311–12, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959). Likewise, the government may use hearsay to establish probable cause, but must permit defendants to confront the witnesses against them at trial. See id. ; U.S. Const. amend. VI. To protect defendants before trial, therefore, the Framers added other procedural safeguards, including the right to a speedy trial and against excessive bail. U.S. Const. amend. VI, VIII. Nevertheless, given the reduced burdens imposed on the government at this pretrial stage, the Supreme Court has recognized that cases will inevitably arise in which the government validly establishes the probable cause necessary for a pretrial detention, but later falls short in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Michigan v. DeFillippo , 443 U.S. 31, 36, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 61 L.Ed.2d 343 (1979).

This is one of those cases. A witness told Detective Keith Roberts that her former boyfriend, Eugene Baker, and one of Baker's friends whom she knew as "Desean" had robbed and murdered a competing drug dealer. After this witness identified a photo of the plaintiff, Duzuan Lester, as the "Desean" who had accompanied Baker to the murder, Kentucky prosecutors indicted Baker and Lester. When confronted face-to-face with Lester at trial, however, the witness suggested that Lester did not look like Baker's accomplice. Finding that the prosecution had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury acquitted Lester. He now claims that Detective Roberts violated the Fourth Amendment and Kentucky tort law by inadequately investigating the murder before helping initiate the criminal case. Yet the Fourth Amendment and Kentucky law required only probable cause for Lester's pretrial detention and prosecution. And this witness's earlier identification of Lester—combined with corroborating evidence like DNA at the scene—sufficed to meet that standard. We thus affirm the grant of summary judgment to Roberts.

I

A

Around 7:00 p.m. on August 25, 2007, Dominic Hudson was shot and killed in his Louisville apartment. Detective Roberts, who worked for the police department's homicide unit, arrived at the scene 40 minutes later. He interviewed the woman who had called 911 along with her boyfriend. The woman told Roberts that she had called Hudson between 6:30 and 7:00 p.m. about picking up CDs. When she and her boyfriend arrived at Hudson's apartment, the door was not fully shut. Hudson also did not come to the door or answer his phone. They entered, saw his body on the kitchen floor, and ran out to call 911.

Another detective walked to a nearby BP gas station to interview Charles Evans. Evans explained that around 7:00 p.m. he saw two men "run from around the west side of his building and continue running past the west side of the apartment office and east bound towards" the street with the BP. Evans believed that one of the men was a person he knew as "Ray Ray." He described Ray Ray as an African American in his "early 20s" with a "thin build." Evans recalled that this man "had to keep stopping while he was running because he lost his shoe." He described the other man as an African American in his "mid 20s" with a "muscular build." This suspect was "wearing blue jean shorts and no shirt."

The next day, Kristie Hart called the police because she had been at Hudson's apartment right before the murder. Roberts interviewed her weeks later. Hart stated that Hudson had been her friend and had regularly sold marijuana from his apartment. She visited his apartment around 6:20 p.m. and planned to go out with Hudson and her cousin, Teresa Wise. Two young African-American men stopped by shortly before Wise arrived. Hudson began to argue with one of them about money. So Hart and Wise opted to leave around 6:50. Hart described the man arguing with Hudson as chubby and wearing a black t-shirt and dark shorts. She described the second man as thin and wearing a t-shirt with plaid shorts. Both men wore ball caps, but one of them placed his hat on a desk. (A hat was recovered from the scene.)

Detective Roberts interviewed Wise a week later. Wise confirmed that she had left the apartment at about 6:50 p.m. Yet she said she barely saw the men. When she left, one was sitting in a computer chair. She recalled him having a "stocky" build and a brown t-shirt. The other was standing against the wall and wearing a red hat. Wise could not make a positive identification from a photo array but suggested that a picture of "William Charter" resembled one of the men.

At some point, Detective Roberts identified the "Ray Ray" that Evans thought had been fleeing from the scene as the "William Charter" who Wise said resembled one of the men in the apartment. But Roberts concluded that Charter had not been involved after interviewing him and finding him "forthcoming."

In October 2007, the investigation instead turned to Eugene Baker and Duzuan Lester (the plaintiff) when Roberts interviewed Susan Copass-Cheng. Copass-Cheng had been Baker's girlfriend for years but had ended the relationship because of his abuse. She told Roberts that a "distraught" Baker had called her days after the murder "in a panic" wanting to see her and their child. When Copass-Cheng visited Baker, he told her: "I just needed to see you because I did something that if somebody finds out, I will probably never be able to see you all again." He added: "If they catch me, I'm gonna go away for a long time."

In her interview with Roberts, Copass-Cheng implicated Lester as the second man when she described three separate conversations—one with a woman named "Jasmine" who was then living with Baker, the next with Baker's sister, and the third with a friend. After Copass-Cheng told Jasmine that she was scared, Jasmine responded that she need not worry about retaliation because Baker had "finished it." Jasmine also noted: "We haven't seen Dezuan since all that stuff happened" and "He's scared to death." Baker's sister told Copass-Cheng that she thought "they hit a lick on a guy named Dominique" and described "Dominique" as a person who sold Baker marijuana. (Copass-Cheng described "hitting a lick" as taking something "from somebody that they're not supposed to have anyway," such as "stolen property" or "illegal drugs.") Copass-Cheng then discussed with a friend what Jasmine and Baker's sister had told her. The friend said: "Jasmine just told you that [Baker] was with Dezuan whenever he did whatever he was supposed to do. [Baker's sister] just told you it was a guy named Dominique. That's way too much coincidental stuff." Copass-Cheng identified "Dezuan's" last name as "Lester" and said she knew him from high school. She also told Roberts that Baker and Lester were friends.

This interview led Detective Roberts to take various steps. He showed Hart (the victim's friend who had visited his apartment) a photo array that included Baker's picture. Hart identified Baker as one of the men at the apartment. Roberts also interviewed Baker and Lester. Baker admitted to buying drugs from the victim, but quickly invoked his right to counsel. Lester asserted that he did not know the victim, had never been to his apartment, and had nothing to do with the murder. Lester admitted to being friends with Baker but claimed that he had not seen Baker for a year apart from "doing music together" and running into him on the street.

Detective Roberts sought DNA testing for items at the murder scene, including the hat. In May 2008, DNA on the hat came back "consistent with a mixture" from Lester, Baker, and an unknown person. An "estimated one person per 6.3 thousand could be a contributor to this mixture based on the relevant United States populations."

After gathering this evidence, Roberts shared his file with a prosecutor. Although the two believed that they had probable cause to indict Baker and Lester, they concluded that they lacked enough evidence to convict.

B

The case went cold for years. In November 2012, Detective Roberts developed a new lead. He interviewed Nikkia Sullivan, an inmate who had contacted the police years before about the murder. Sullivan had dated Hudson (the victim) and had been best friends with Jasmine (the woman living with Baker, whose last name Sullivan identified as "Williams"). She told Detective Roberts that Jasmine Williams (hereinafter "Williams") had told her months after the murder that she had been driving when Baker went to Hudson's apartment and killed him. According to Sullivan, Williams said "it was over money": Baker wanted his drug clientele back after they had switched to Hudson. Williams also said that another man had gone with Baker, but Williams was unable to tell Sullivan his name. Separately, Sullivan told Detective Roberts that she had repeatedly called Williams after the murder asking about Hudson's whereabouts. Baker at some point took the phone, told Sullivan "I killed him," and hung up.

Detective Roberts then interviewed...