Nicholas Yarris v. County of Delaware Barry Gross, Esquire William H. Ryan, Jr. Dennis McAndrews Esquire Office of District Attorney of Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division, Randolph Martin, Criminal Investigation Division, Office of the District Attorney Delaware County David Pfeifer, Criminal Investigation Division, Office of the District Attorney Delaware County Clifton Minshall, Criminal Investigation Division, Office of the District Attorney Delaware County Craig Siti, Investigator, Criminal Investigation Division, Office of the District Attorney Delaware County

Citations: 465 F.3d 129; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735Docket: 18-1463

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 2, 2006; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Nicholas Yarris spent twenty-two years on death row for kidnapping, rape, and murder, which he claims he did not commit due to the actions of Delaware County prosecutors and detectives. Yarris alleges that they obscured and destroyed evidence that pointed to the actual perpetrator, manufactured evidence against him, and obstructed his requests for DNA testing. After his conviction was overturned and charges dropped, Yarris filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting violations of his constitutional rights and Pennsylvania law. The prosecutors and detectives sought dismissal based on claims of absolute and qualified immunity; however, the District Court partially denied this motion. The appeal focuses on whether the District Court correctly determined the prosecutors and detectives were not entitled to immunity for Yarris's claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

In 1981, Yarris was arrested for attempted murder following an assault on a police officer and was placed in solitary confinement. While incarcerated, he learned about the unsolved murder of Linda Mae Craig and claimed to detectives Martin and Pfeifer that a fellow drug addict had confessed to the crime, although his information was inaccurate. After the detectives dismissed his claims, Yarris was returned to solitary confinement, where he experienced severe conditions. Following a failed suicide attempt, he sought a transfer and allegedly made statements to a prison guard that led to his eventual charges for Craig's murder, despite lacking evidence against him.

Yarris was acquitted of attempted murder before standing trial for the Craig murder, during which he faced aggressive and unprofessional conduct from prosecutor Barry Gross. At the Craig murder trial, the prosecution introduced a photograph of the victim's car revealing gloves that Yarris had not been informed about and were allegedly too small for him. Despite this, the prosecution suggested Yarris's fingerprints were absent due to him wearing those gloves. Witnesses claimed to have seen Yarris stalking the victim, and a jailhouse informant testified that Yarris confessed to him, reportedly for a reduced sentence. Yarris was convicted and sentenced to death in January 1983, a decision upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 1988.

In March 1988, Yarris sought DNA testing on the evidence from the crime scene but was initially told most had been destroyed, with only two stained slides remaining. These slides were deemed insufficient for testing. Upon discovering two additional slides, Yarris contacted the District Attorney, but the detectives responsible failed to deliver them, leading to their deterioration. In 1989, Yarris petitioned for DNA testing on the victim's clothing, but results were inconclusive. From 1989 onward, he requested further testing with advanced PCR-enhanced techniques. In September 1992, the District Attorney permitted more testing, which yielded inconclusive results.

In April 2003, PCR-enhanced DNA testing on the gloves indicated Yarris was not their habitual user. Further testing on semen from the victim's clothing identified two unknown males, one of whom was the habitual user of the gloves. Additional testing on scrapings from the victim's fingernails confirmed they matched the habitual user of the gloves.

On August 19, 2003, the district court ordered a new trial for Yarris or his release due to new evidence. Following a joint petition by the District Attorney's office and Yarris's counsel, Yarris's conviction was vacated on September 3, 2003. After a ninety-day review period, all charges against Yarris were dropped on December 9, 2003, leading to his release from prison on January 16, 2004. 

Yarris initiated legal action on August 11, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming several defendants, including the County of Delaware and various district attorneys and detectives. His Amended Complaint included federal constitutional claims and state law claims stemming from his 1982 murder conviction. 

The Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) and Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Detectives sought dismissal of the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), citing absolute and qualified immunity. The District Court granted dismissal of Yarris's Fifth Amendment claim and claims against the deceased Detective Minshall but denied the motion for the remaining claims against the ADAs and CID Detectives. The ADAs and CID Detectives subsequently appealed this denial.

The District Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 for constitutional claims and had supplemental jurisdiction over state claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367(a). The appellate jurisdiction extends to the interlocutory appeal regarding immunity issues. The appellate court conducts a plenary review of legal issues concerning absolute and qualified immunity, focusing on the complaint's contents and favorably construing the facts for Yarris to assess the applicability of immunity claims. The ADAs assert entitlement to absolute or qualified immunity, while the CID Detectives claim qualified immunity.

Assistant District Attorneys are granted absolute immunity from constitutional claims under Section 1983 for actions taken in a quasi-judicial capacity, as established in Supreme Court case law. Although Section 1983 aims to hold public officials accountable for violating constitutional rights, the Court has clarified that it does not eliminate all common-law immunities. Most public officials receive only qualified immunity, while those performing "special functions," such as prosecutors, are afforded absolute immunity to protect them from retaliation and encourage the robust enforcement of criminal law. This immunity covers acts closely tied to judicial processes, including initiating prosecutions and presenting cases. However, it does not extend to administrative roles or investigatory actions unrelated to advocacy. The determination of whether absolute immunity applies hinges on whether the prosecutor was acting as the state's advocate in the relevant conduct. The focus of this assessment is on the nature of the function performed rather than the identity of the individual performing it.

Yarris's Amended Complaint asserts that the Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments by allegedly destroying and withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating a false confession, and obtaining false testimony from a jailhouse informant. The document examines whether the ADAs are entitled to absolute immunity for these actions. 

Regarding the alleged deliberate destruction of exculpatory evidence, it is noted that no precedent grants absolute immunity for such conduct, as it is not considered part of a prosecutor's core functions. The court referenced past cases indicating that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor knowingly fails to preserve exculpatory evidence or engages in perjury unrelated to an ongoing prosecution. The conclusion is that the ADAs are not entitled to absolute immunity for the alleged destruction of exculpatory evidence.

In contrast, for claims related to the withholding of exculpatory evidence, the Amended Complaint states that the ADAs failed to disclose crucial materials and delayed the release of evidence for DNA testing. However, established case law affirms that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for withholding exculpatory evidence when acting within their prosecutorial capacity, including actions taken after a conviction while an appeal is pending. Thus, the court finds that the ADAs are absolutely immune from claims regarding the intentional concealment of exculpatory evidence before trial.

The excerpt addresses the question of whether Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) have absolute immunity from claims related to the alleged withholding of exculpatory DNA evidence after Yarris's conviction and death sentence. It aligns with precedents stating that absolute immunity applies to prosecutors acting as advocates in post-conviction proceedings but does not extend to actions outside that role. Courts have differentiated between circumstances where prosecutors are personally involved in advocacy and where they are not. The excerpt notes that the ADAs have not demonstrated that their handling of Yarris's requests for DNA testing was part of their advocacy role in ongoing post-conviction proceedings. Instead, their actions are characterized as administrative, akin to non-adversarial roles held by police and other officials, which do not warrant absolute immunity. Consequently, the ADAs may only be entitled to qualified immunity. Additionally, the complaint alleges that the ADAs fabricated a false confession from Yarris, but lacks details on the context of this alleged fabrication, with the only mention being a conversation with a prison guard that contradicts established DNA evidence.

Absolute immunity for the Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) is not warranted at the motion-to-dismiss stage regarding allegations of evidence fabrication. The determination hinges on whether the ADAs acted as state advocates during the alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court precedent in Buckley indicates that prosecutors lose absolute immunity if their actions occur prior to acting in an advocacy role. The allegations do not clarify if Yarris's confession fabrication happened during the preliminary investigation or after the indictment, which means the ADAs cannot claim immunity at this early stage.

Additionally, Yarris claims that the ADAs violated his constitutional rights by obtaining a false statement from jailhouse informant Charles Catalino, who allegedly perjured himself by testifying about Yarris's supposed admissions of guilt. Yarris contends that Catalino received leniency in exchange for his false testimony, which is corroborated by DNA evidence proving Yarris's innocence. However, prosecutors are generally immune from liability for using false testimony if it occurs during their advocacy role. Since Yarris was already charged when Catalino's statements were made, the ADAs are entitled to absolute immunity concerning this claim because their actions took place within the context of the prosecution.

Prosecutors may qualify for qualified immunity, even if they do not receive absolute immunity. In this case, the Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) sought dismissal of Yarris's claims based on both absolute and qualified immunity; however, the District Court only addressed absolute immunity and neglected to consider the qualified immunity arguments. Consequently, the issue of the ADAs' qualified immunity will be remanded for the District Court's initial consideration.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the ADAs violated Yarris's rights under Pennsylvania law, including unlawful arrest, malicious prosecution, and other offenses. The ADAs requested dismissal of these claims based on state law immunity, but the District Court did not rule on this request, focusing solely on federal constitutional claims. Thus, this matter will also be remanded for the District Court's consideration.

The claims against the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Detectives involve alleged violations of Yarris's Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The CID Detectives moved to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity, which protects state officials unless their conduct violates clearly established rights. A two-step inquiry is necessary to determine if qualified immunity applies: first, whether the alleged facts demonstrate a constitutional violation, and second, whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.

The District Court denied the motion to dismiss against the CID Detectives, noting that if Yarris's claims are accurate, the Detectives knowingly violated his constitutional rights, thus negating their entitlement to qualified immunity.

CID Detectives on appeal assert that the constitutional rights allegedly violated were not 'clearly established' during their actions. The Amended Complaint claims the Detectives violated Yarris's Fourteenth Amendment rights by withholding exculpatory evidence. While Brady v. Maryland mandates prosecutors to disclose favorable evidence, this duty primarily applies to prosecutors, not police. Nevertheless, law enforcement can be liable under Section 1983 for failing to provide exculpatory information to prosecutors.

The Detectives claim qualified immunity concerning allegations of failing to submit gloves found at the crime scene to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) before trial. The Amended Complaint indicates that the prosecution determined the gloves did not fit Yarris's hands, implying the Detectives fulfilled their disclosure responsibilities. As such, no constitutional violation regarding the gloves' pre-trial disclosure is present, warranting qualified immunity.

Additionally, the Detectives argue for qualified immunity concerning claims of mishandling and failing to preserve evidence for DNA testing. The Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona v. Youngblood establishes that law enforcement's failure to preserve evidence does not violate due process unless bad faith is demonstrated. This standard requires assessing the police's knowledge of the evidence's exculpatory potential at the time of its loss or destruction.

Yarris's claim relates to post-conviction actions, while Youngblood primarily addresses pre-conviction duties. However, the principles from Youngblood regarding due process and evidence preservation are considered relevant. The concept of due process emphasizes the government's obligation to treat citizens equitably, and targeting individuals to undermine their rights contradicts this constitutional guarantee.

Prisoners have a constitutional right to effective access to the court system, and any governmental action that intentionally denies this access, especially by withholding evidence, constitutes a due process violation. Such actions undermine the principles of fair and impartial procedural justice. In the case at hand, the CID Detectives argued that their mishandling of DNA samples did not constitute a constitutional violation due to the nascent state of DNA testing at the time. However, the court disagreed, stating that to demonstrate bad faith, it suffices to show the detectives were aware of the evidence's exculpatory value when it was destroyed. Allegations in the Amended Complaint indicated that Detective Pfeifer and others intentionally mishandled the evidence, keeping it improperly stored, which supports the claim of bad faith as per the standards set in Youngblood. The court determined that the right to due process was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct, thus the detectives could not claim qualified immunity. Additionally, Yarris claimed the detectives used deceit to obtain false evidence against him. However, since the introduction of this evidence was attributed to prosecutorial actions, which are protected by absolute immunity, the detectives were granted qualified immunity regarding these claims as there was no support for the assertion that their interrogation methods constituted a separate violation of Yarris's rights.

The District Court's order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with the case remanded for further proceedings. The appeal involves the denial of absolute and qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage, accepting Yarris's allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in his favor. Notably, Davidson, who was involved in the alleged conduct, is deceased and not a defendant. The Amended Complaint claims that Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) violated Yarris's rights, including accusations of using torture to extract statements, but the court found insufficient grounds to deny absolute immunity to the ADAs based on these claims. The complaint alleges that CID Detectives used coercive interrogation tactics, destroyed exculpatory information, fabricated confessions, and failed to disclose evidence, which purportedly violated Yarris's rights. Although the court dismissed Yarris's Fifth Amendment claim, it is not currently under appeal. The discussion includes the possibility that constitutional rights may be considered clearly established even if similar conduct had not been previously deemed unlawful.