Whitlock v. Brueggemann

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying motions to dismiss filed by defendants-prosecutor and certain police officials in section 1983 actions alleging that defendants conspired to frame plaintiffs for two murders by manufacturing false evidence that was used by defendant-prosecutor to generate guilty verdicts that were eventually overturned via post-convictions proceedings, where defendants claimed that they were entitled to either absolute or qualified immunity. Ct. found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appeals by police officials who claimed qualified immunity since said defendants' appeal concerned only "sufficiency of evidence" argument to counter Dist. Ct.'s finding that material question of fact existed that would preclude granting of defendants' motion. Ct. also found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider appeal by defendant-prosecutor that he was entitled to absolute immunity for time period prior to plaintiffs' being charged with murders since material factual dispute existed as to moment when probable cause developed so as to change defendant's status from individual investigating murders to individual prosecuting said crimes. Ct. also held that prosecutor who manufactures false evidence when acting in investigatory role can cause due process violation in same vein as police officer accused of same conduct even though prosecutor could claim absolute immunity by subsequently using said false evidence at trial.