Newsome v. McCabe
| Citation | 260 F.3d 824 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-2326,00-2326 |
| Parties | (7th Cir. 2001) James Newsome, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John McCabe and Raymond McNally, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) |
Before Flaum, Chief Judge, and Easterbrook and Diane P. Wood, Circuit Judges.
On Petition for Rehearing
Defendants' petition for rehearing contends that it was not clearly established, when they acted, that the state's constitutional duty to avoid concealing materially exculpatory evidence ever imposed any obligations on police, as opposed to prosecutors. That proposition is incompatible with Jones v. Chicago, 856 F.2d 985 (7th Cir. 1988), which dealt with police conduct at about the same time as Newsome's trial, and with Jean v. Collins, 221 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc), which holds that police who deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence, and thus prevent the prosecutors from complying with the obligations articulated in Brady, violate the due process clause.
We agree with defendants that police need not spontaneously reveal to prosecutors every tidbit that with the benefit of hindsight (and the context of other evidence) could be said to assist defendants. That is one reason why duties often depend on a defendant's request. Just as prosecutors need not automatically open their files to defendants, so police need not automatically engage in debriefing sessions with prosecutors. This was why our opinion went out of its way to agree with the defendants' contention that "in 1979 [and today], the detectives could have reasonably believed that it should be up to the prosecutors, and ultimately the court, to determine if an eyewitness identification is sufficiently reliable for use at trial." If all the plaintiff can prove at trial is that these officers failed to take the initiative in providing the prosecutors with information that would have come out as soon as the prosecutors asked (or as soon as defense counsel interviewed the police or questioned them on the stand), then no due process violation by the police has been established. But if the right characterization of the defendants' conduct is that they deliberately withheld information, seeking to misdirect or mislead the prosecutors and the defense, then there is a genuine constitutional problem.
Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995), requires us to assume that plaintiff can prove a deliberate withholding of information. Such proof would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayes v. City of Hammond, in, 2:03-CV-379-PRC.
...for police no less than prosecutors to violate the due process clause by withholding exculpatory information." Newsome v. McCabe, 260 F.3d 824, 825 (7th Cir.2001) (supplemental opinion on petition for rehearing). In such a situation, the officer himself has caused the due process If officer......
-
Patterson v. Burge, 03 C 4433.
...task to form the complaint ... [and] depends on how this court allows [plaintiff] to characterize his claim."); Newsome v. McCabe, 260 F.3d 824, 825 (7th Cir.2001) (denial of petition for reh'g en banc) ("if the right characterization of the defendants' conduct is that they deliberately wit......
-
Rivera v. Guevara
...evidence. See Dominguez , 545 F.3d at 588, 589 ; Jones , 856 F.2d at 953. As for the Brady claims, the Seventh Circuit held in Newsome v. McCabe that it was "clearly established in 1979 and 1980 that police could not withhold from prosecutors exculpatory information about fingerprints and t......
-
Beaman v. Souk
...that with the benefit of hindsight (and the context of other evidence) could be said to assist defendants.” Newsome v. McCabe, 260 F.3d 824, 824 (7th Cir.2001) (per curiam). Generally, for a defendant to be liable under § 1983, the plaintiff must prove personal involvement in the constituti......