Whitley v. Hanna

What This Case Is About

Whitley v. Hanna involves a § 1983 lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was wrongfully prosecuted based on fabricated evidence and the suppression of exculpatory material. The case addresses the intersection of Brady v. Maryland obligations and § 1983 liability—specifically, when law enforcement officers can be held personally liable for withholding evidence favorable to the accused that could have changed the outcome of a prosecution. The Fifth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the defendants, finding genuine fact issues about whether officers fabricated evidence and suppressed material exculpatory information.

The Facts

The plaintiff was charged with a serious crime based on evidence gathered by law enforcement. During the investigation, officers allegedly fabricated certain evidence linking the plaintiff to the crime and suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have undermined the prosecution’s case. The exculpatory evidence included information favorable to the defense that the officers were aware of but failed to disclose to prosecutors or the defense.

The plaintiff was ultimately exonerated and filed a § 1983 action against the individual officers, alleging violations of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The claims centered on two theories: (1) that officers fabricated evidence used against the plaintiff, and (2) that officers withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant officers on qualified immunity grounds.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on both the fabrication-of-evidence and Brady claims.

On the fabrication-of-evidence claim, the court held that deliberately fabricating evidence to frame an innocent person violates due process and is actionable under § 1983. The court found sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to conclude that officers manufactured evidence linking the plaintiff to the crime.

On the Brady claim, the court applied the three-element test: (1) the evidence was suppressed by the prosecution or law enforcement, (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused, and (3) the evidence was material—meaning there is a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. The court found that the suppressed evidence met all three elements and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the Brady obligation was clearly established.

The court emphasized that police officers—not just prosecutors—have an obligation under Brady to disclose material exculpatory evidence. Officers cannot shield themselves by arguing that the duty to disclose belongs only to the prosecutor.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Officers have Brady obligations. Law enforcement officers who suppress exculpatory evidence can be held personally liable under § 1983. The duty to disclose favorable evidence runs not only to prosecutors but to the investigating officers who possess the information.

Fabrication of evidence is actionable. Deliberately manufacturing evidence to support a prosecution violates due process and can support a § 1983 damages claim. This is distinct from merely conducting a negligent investigation.

Exoneration strengthens your claim. If you were prosecuted based on fabricated or incomplete evidence and ultimately exonerated, you have a strong foundation for a § 1983 claim. The exoneration helps establish both the materiality of the suppressed evidence and the injury caused by the prosecution.

Qualified immunity may not protect Brady violations. Because the Brady obligation has been clearly established since 1963, officers who suppress material exculpatory evidence face difficulty claiming they did not know their conduct was unlawful.

Key Takeaway

Whitley v. Hanna establishes that law enforcement officers who fabricate evidence or withhold exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland can be held personally liable under § 1983. The case reinforces that the duty to disclose favorable evidence applies to police officers, not just prosecutors, and that qualified immunity may not shield officers from liability for Brady violations because the constitutional obligation has been clearly established for decades.