Goudy v. Cummings

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants denied him due process/committed Brady violation by withholding videotape showing lineup in which several witnesses identified different individual as shooter, as well as interview notes showing that other suspect in instant murder had switched his story about his whereabouts at time of shooting. Plaintiff had previously obtained writ of habeas corpus, after court found that Brady violation had occurred, and state decided not to re-try him. Moreover, record contained evidence of possible due process/Brady violation with respect to suppression of videotape, where trier-of fact could conclude that defendant had intentionally withheld videotape from prosecutors after holding said videotape for 14 months and otherwise concealing said videotape from prosecutors. Also, Dist. Ct. erred in finding, with respect to suppression of interview notes, that: (1) deposition of third-party indicating that he was aware that other suspect had changed his story relieved defendants of any liability for withholding of notes; and (2) there was no Brady violation by instant defendants since prosecution was aware of information found in notes. Ct. further found that withholding of such evidence was material, and that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.