Jones v. York

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ (County investigator and County) motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action, alleging that defendant-investigator violated her due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating inculpatory evidence and testifying falsely at her trial on arson charges. Record showed that: (1) investigator was investigating source of fire at plaintiff’s home, and after initially finding that fire was caused by electrical problem, eventually found that plaintiff had caused fire after listening to recording generated by third-party that indicated that plaintiff had caused fire; and (2) after plaintiff was found guilty of said arson charges, said charges were eventually dismissed, where record suggested that third-party had generated said recording for purposes of extorting plaintiff. With respect to plaintiff’s claim that investigator either withheld different telephone recording generated by plaintiff, investigator testified that although he attempted to record said phone call, he was unsuccessful in doing so. As such, there was no Brady violation, where: (1) plaintiff could not establish that said recording ever existed; and (2) plaintiff failed to show that said recording was material. Plaintiff also failed to establish that investigator fabricated any evidence, where: (1) investigator’s failure to include all details of recording in his written summary did not constitute fabricated evidence given summary nature of said report; and (2) plaintiff failed to show how investigation report was otherwise inconsistent or misleading. Moreover, plaintiff could not proceed on her claim that investigator gave false testimony at trial, where investigator enjoyed absolute immunity from liability based on his trail testimony.