Winfrey v. Rogers

What This Case Is About

Richard Winfrey Jr. (“Junior”) was arrested for capital murder after a botched investigation that relied on discredited “scent lineup” evidence, an unreliable jailhouse informant, and warrant affidavits that omitted critical exculpatory evidence. After spending over 16 months in prison, Junior was acquitted by a jury in just thirteen minutes. He brought a § 1983 action against Deputy Sheriff Lenard Johnson, alleging that Johnson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by signing arrest warrant affidavits that contained material misstatements and omissions. The Fifth Circuit vacated summary judgment for Johnson and remanded for trial.

The Facts

Murray Wayne Burr was found murdered in his home in San Jacinto County, Texas, in August 2004. The investigation focused on Junior (then seventeen), his sixteen-year-old sister Megan, and their father, Richard Winfrey Sr.

The investigation was riddled with problems. Texas Ranger Grover Huff arranged a “scent lineup” conducted by Keith Pikett using his pet bloodhounds. During the first drop-trail exercise at the crime scene, Huff accidentally used the scent of Christopher Hammond (Megan’s boyfriend) instead of Junior’s—a mistake both Huff and Pikett documented in their reports. DNA analysis showed the blood at the crime scene did not belong to Junior or Megan, and hair found at the scene did not match any of the Winfreys.

A year later, a jailhouse informant named Campbell came forward claiming that Winfrey Sr. had confessed to the murder while they were cellmates. Campbell’s story changed between interviews: first saying Junior and Megan helped, then saying a cousin was the accomplice. Campbell claimed Burr was both stabbed and shot (he was only stabbed) and that his genitals were cut off (they were not).

Despite all this, Deputy Johnson signed arrest warrant affidavits for all three Winfreys. The affidavits omitted: (1) Campbell’s inconsistent statements; (2) the contradictions between Campbell’s account and the physical evidence; (3) the DNA and hair evidence excluding the Winfreys; and (4) the fact that the scent lineup used the wrong person’s scent for Junior. The affidavit also falsely stated that the drop-trail used Junior’s scent.

Junior was arrested, charged with capital murder, and spent two years in jail before trial. On June 12, 2009, the jury acquitted him after just thirteen minutes of deliberation.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit vacated summary judgment and remanded for trial, holding that Johnson was not entitled to qualified immunity.

Applying the Franks v. Delaware framework, the court found that Junior presented sufficient evidence that Johnson’s affidavit contained material misstatements and omissions made with reckless disregard for the truth. The court then conducted the critical “corrected affidavit” analysis—considering what the affidavit would have said if the false statements were removed and the omitted facts included.

The corrected affidavit would have revealed: the scent lineup used the wrong person’s scent; DNA and hair excluded the Winfreys; the jailhouse informant’s story was internally inconsistent and contradicted by physical evidence; and the informant had changed his story about who helped commit the murder. The court concluded that a reasonable magistrate would not have issued the warrant based on the corrected affidavit.

The court also rejected Johnson’s reliance on the independent intermediary doctrine. Under that doctrine, if all facts are placed before an independent intermediary like a grand jury, the intermediary’s decision breaks the causal chain. But here, the record did not show that the material omitted information was ever presented to either the grand jury or the state trial judge. The doctrine did not apply.

On statute of limitations, the court found that Junior’s claim accrued when he was acquitted (like malicious prosecution), not when he was arrested (like false imprisonment), so his suit was timely filed.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Omissions in warrant affidavits can defeat qualified immunity. Under Franks, if an officer knowingly or recklessly omits material facts from a warrant affidavit, and the corrected affidavit would not establish probable cause, the officer can be held liable under § 1983.

The corrected affidavit test is the key analysis. Courts don’t just ask whether the officer lied—they ask whether the warrant would have been issued if the truth had been told. This is the standard you must meet.

The independent intermediary doctrine has limits. A grand jury indictment does not automatically shield the officer if the grand jury was not presented with all material facts. If the officer’s tainted affidavit was the only information before the grand jury, the doctrine does not apply.

Junk science and unreliable informants matter. The case highlights the dangers of relying on discredited forensic techniques (scent lineups) and unreliable jailhouse informants. Evidence of these problems strengthens a § 1983 claim.

Malicious prosecution claims accrue at acquittal. The statute of limitations for a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim begins when the criminal prosecution ends in the plaintiff’s favor—not at the time of arrest.

Key Takeaway

Winfrey v. Rogers is a powerful case for § 1983 plaintiffs who were arrested based on warrant affidavits that omitted exculpatory evidence or contained false statements. The decision establishes that officers who recklessly disregard the truth in seeking arrest warrants—by omitting DNA evidence, ignoring inconsistent informant statements, or misrepresenting forensic results—can be held personally liable under the Fourth Amendment. The case is a roadmap for challenging wrongful arrests based on defective warrant affidavits.