Stinson v. Gauger

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendants-police official and two odontologists’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants fabricated their medical opinions that linked plaintiff to bite marks on murder victim that resulted in plaintiff being wrongfully found guilty on murder charge and then suppressed evidence of said fabrication. Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity since plaintiff had established, at best, that defendants were mistaken in their opinions (and not that they knew that their opinions were wrong), and that said mistake was not actionable as violation of due process. Moreover, plaintiff could not establish any suppression of evidence claim since: (1) said claim was wholly dependent on allegation of fabrication; and (2) record showed that prosecution supplied plaintiff with defendants’ opinions and gave plaintiff list of other experts, and that one of said experts had actually agreed with defendants’ opinion that plaintiff was source of bite marks.