Weimer v. Cnty. of Fayette

• Decision Date: 25 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-1823,19-1823
• Citation: 972 F.3d 177
• Parties: Crystal Dawn WEIMER v. COUNTY OF FAYETTE, PENNSYLVANIA ; Office of the Fayette County of District Attorney; Nancy D. Vernon, in her official and individual capacities; Ronald Haggerty, Jr.; Thomas Cesario; Thomas W. Patton; Beverly Ashton, in their individual capacities; City of Connellsville County of Fayette; Nancy Vernon, Appellants
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

972 F.3d 177

Crystal Dawn WEIMER

v.COUNTY OF FAYETTE, PENNSYLVANIA ; Office of the Fayette County of District Attorney; Nancy D. Vernon, in her official and individual capacities; Ronald Haggerty, Jr.; Thomas Cesario; Thomas W. Patton; Beverly Ashton, in their individual capacities; City of Connellsville

County of Fayette; Nancy Vernon, Appellants

No. 19-1823

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued April 22, 2020

Filed: August 25, 2020

Marie M. Jones [ARGUED], Maria N. Pipak, Michael R. Lettrich, JonesPassodelis, 707 Grant Street, Gulf Tower, Suite 3410, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellants

Joseph E. Culleiton [ARGUED], Blank Rome, 501 Grant Street, Suite 850, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellee

Before: HARDIMAN, RENDELL and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FISHER, Circuit Judge.

Crystal Dawn Weimer spent more than eleven years in prison for murder. After her convictions were vacated, all charges against her were dismissed with prejudice. Weimer then filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County of Fayette, Pennsylvania; its former District Attorney, Nancy Vernon; the City of Connellsville; and several city and state police officers violated her rights under the U.S. Constitution and Pennsylvania law. In this interlocutory appeal, we address only a narrow sliver of this sweeping case: whether absolute immunity or, where raised, qualified immunity shields District Attorney Vernon from proceeding to discovery on certain of Weimer's claims.¹

After assuring ourselves of our jurisdiction, we address each immunity argument in turn. We conclude that, aside from Vernon's approval of the criminal complaint, because Weimer alleges Vernon engaged in investigatory conduct, absolute immunity does not protect Vernon from suit. However, we also hold that Vernon is entitled to qualified immunity as to Weimer's failure to intervene claim and as to Vernon's alleged conduct in directing officers to investigate bite-mark evidence. Thus, we will affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

I

In reviewing a district court's "rulings on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, our recitation of the facts is limited to" the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations. Odd v. Malone , 538 F.3d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2008). "We accept those facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences" in her favor. Id.

A. The Initial Investigation into Curtis Haith's Murder

In the early morning hours of January 27, 2001, members of the Connellsville Police Department arrived at Curtis Haith's apartment to find Haith, who had been beaten and shot in the face, lying dead outside on the sidewalk. At officers’ request, Vernon also came to Haith's apartment to participate in and help direct the investigation.

During their initial search of the crime scene, officers recovered DNA samples and found a significant amount of drug-related evidence inside Haith's apartment. From speaking with Haith's neighbors and friends, police learned that he had attended parties and had hosted a dozen or more people in his apartment on the evening of January 26 and into the morning of January 27.

Officers soon began interviewing people who had attended these parties, including Weimer. When officers arrived at her house, Weimer was still dressed in the clothes she had been wearing the night before. She had minor injuries to her face and foot, and officers observed what looked like mud and blood on her clothes. Weimer told officers that she, Haith, and others had attended a party the night before and that she had given Haith a ride from that party and dropped him off at another party. She then spent the rest of the night at the housing community where her mother and sisters lived. Her cousin, sisters, and then-boyfriend Michael Gibson confirmed her story. Weimer and Gibson also told officers that Weimer injured her foot when they were "horseplaying" a few days earlier. App. 87 ¶ 31. And Weimer said that the blood on her shirt and the injury to her eye were caused by a fight with Gibson. DNA testing later confirmed that the blood on Weimer's clothes belonged to Gibson, and none of the DNA samples collected from the crime scene matched Weimer—in fact, the samples suggested a male DNA profile.

B. Weimer Is Implicated

In October 2002—over twenty months after the murder—Thomas Beal, whom Weimer had dated before Gibson, told police that Weimer and Gibson killed Haith. According to Beal, Weimer had told him that the blood on her clothes belonged to Haith (which, based on the DNA testing, could not have been correct) and that she and Gibson shot Haith.

Around the same time, the Pennsylvania State Police Cold Case Squad began to assist with the investigation. When reviewing Haith's autopsy photos, a state investigator saw what she believed to be a bite mark on Haith's hand. A Fayette County dentist analyzed the injury. The dentist first concluded that Gibson bit Haith, but after examining teeth impressions for Weimer, she reported she could not identify which set of teeth caused the mark.

A bite-mark expert then reviewed Beal's statement, photos of the injury to Haith's hand, and teeth impressions from Gibson and Weimer. He concluded the bite mark matched Weimer. Later in the investigation, questions arose as to the timing of the bite mark and whether it could have occurred hours or days before the murder. Vernon directed officers to investigate the timing issue, and the expert was asked to update his opinion. Without reviewing additional evidence, he determined the bite occurred seven to ten minutes before Haith's death.

After securing the bite-mark evidence, investigators again spoke with Beal. Although he had previously claimed that Weimer had told him that she and Gibson had killed Haith, he now claimed "a black man named Lonnie" participated in the murder. App. 92 ¶ 47. Investigation into this new story, conducted at the direction of the police and Vernon, revealed that "Lonnie" was incarcerated at the time of Haith's murder. Despite these puzzling changes to his story, Beal remained a key witness.

In August 2003—now over two and a half years since the murder—Conrad Blair contacted police from prison and said that a fellow inmate, Joseph Stenger, had confessed that he was involved in Haith's murder. Vernon and a Connellsville police officer interviewed Blair who told them that Stenger, Weimer, and Beal killed Haith. Blair also gave the interviewers a statement he claimed Stenger had written. The written statement, however, diverged from Blair's account of Stenger's supposed confession—instead of claiming Stenger was involved in the murder, the written statement said he merely helped dispose of evidence in a pond.

Based on this interview and the written statement, Vernon assisted police in assembling a dive team to search the pond. Vernon and several officers also met with Stenger's attorney, who denied that his client wrote the statement.

C. Proceedings Against Weimer

In late December 2003, despite the conflicting statements from Beal, Blair, and Stenger, officers prepared a criminal complaint charging Weimer with Haith's murder, which Vernon approved. In January 2004—three years after Haith's death—Weimer was arrested.

The case against Weimer fell apart almost immediately. During a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth called Beal as a fact witness. While on the stand, Beal recanted his previous statements implicating Weimer in Haith's murder. Instead, he testified that an officer "kind of like coaxed me along on how to do it." App. 94 ¶ 57. Following Beal's revelation, the judge dismissed the charges, and Weimer was released.

Nevertheless, investigators continued to focus their efforts on Weimer. In July 2004, Stenger told police he would implicate Weimer in exchange for a lighter sentence for his unrelated convictions. Based on Stenger's new statement, officers again arrested and charged Weimer with Haith's murder.

Eventually, Weimer was brought to trial in Fayette County. On April 7, 2006, a jury convicted her of third-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. She was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years in prison.

D. Weimer Is Exonerated

On October 1, 2015, a judge vacated Weimer's convictions and granted her request for a new trial. Weimer alleges that, at this point, the police officers and Vernon "continued to act in concert to cover up and suppress the wrongful actions that led to ... Weimer's wrongful convictions" and worked to "re-prosecute[ ] [her] for ... [the] murder." App. 100–01 ¶ 86.

During Weimer's postconviction relief and 2016 pretrial proceedings, a great deal of exculpatory evidence came to light. For example, Stenger recanted his prior stories, conceding he knew nothing about Haith's murder and that police had walked him through his testimony. The bite-mark expert also disavowed his trial testimony, stating that his opinion that the bite mark was Weimer's was based on "junk science." App. 102 ¶ 94. In addition, Weimer's counsel discovered letters in Vernon's files from several jailhouse informants. Although the informants had testified at trial that they were not receiving deals in exchange for their testimony against Weimer, the letters revealed that they had indeed asked for deals and may have received them. Finally, an expert reviewed Haith's autopsy report and photos of Weimer's injuries on the morning of Haith's murder. He concluded Weimer's injuries were consistent with her story that she and Gibson had been "horseplaying" a few days before the murder. App. 103 ¶ 95. On June 27, 2016, the charges against Weimer were "dropped with prejudice." App. 103 ¶ 96.

E. Weimer's Civil Rights Case

In September 2017, Weimer filed a civil rights suit in the District Court, naming as defendants Fayette County, the Office of the Fayette County District Attorney, the City of Connellsville, several Connellsville police officers, one Pennsylvania State Police officer, and Vernon.

As relevant to this...