By: Derek Hawkins//February 6, 2017//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: William D. Avery v. City of Milwaukee, et al
Case No.: 15-3175
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, SYKES and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Wrongful Conviction
In February 1998 Maryetta Griffin was raped and strangled to death and left in an abandoned garage on Milwaukee’s north side. In 2004 Milwaukee police arrested William Avery for the crime. He was convicted of first-degree homicide and spent six years in prison before DNA evidence proved that Walter Ellis, a serial killer linked to nine similar homicides, was responsible for the murder. In 2010 Avery was released from prison; this wrongful conviction suit followed. Avery alleged that Milwaukee detectives concocted a fake confession and induced three jailhouse informants to falsely incriminate him—evidence that was ultimately used to convict him. He also claimed that the detectives failed to disclose, as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), impeachment evidence about how they obtained the false statements from the informants. Finally, Avery added a claim against the City of Milwaukee under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). The district judge rejected the Brady claims on summary judgment, reasoning that the detectives had no duty to disclose the impeachment evidence because Avery already knew the informants’ statements were false. The remaining claims were tried to a jury, which found two of the detectives liable for violating Avery’s due-process rights. The jury also found the City liable and awarded $1 million in damages. Avery’s victory was short-lived. The judge invalidated the verdict against the detectives based on what he said were “mixed signals” coming from this court on whether an officer’s fabrication of evidence is actionable as a due process violation. The judge also set aside the verdict against the City, holding that without a constitutional violation by the detectives, Monell liability was not possible. We reverse. Avery’s due-process claims fall comfortably within our decision in Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012), so the jury’s verdict was legally sound and must be reinstated in its entirety. The Brady claims, too, must
be revived. That Avery knew the informants’ statements were false did not relieve the detectives of their duty to disclose impeachment evidence. Avery is entitled to resume litigation of these claims.
Reversed and remanded