explaining that the court should remand the case to allow the plaintiff "the opportunity to establish on remand that [the government] intentionally withheld the evidence in question for the purpose of preventing him from using it at trial”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the court should remand the case to allow the plaintiff "the opportunity to establish on remand that [the government] intentionally withheld the evidence in question for the purpose of preventing him from using it at trial”
- holding that it was clearly established in 1982 that when police intentionally withhold or destroy evidence, or otherwise act in bad faith, their actions violate the due process rights of a criminal defendant
- stating that § 1983 liability requires that a police officer have “intentionally withheld the evidence for the purpose of depriving the plaintiff of the use of that evidence during his criminal trial”
- declining to extend liability to police for failure to disclose exculpatory evidence “[b]e-cause police knowledge is plainly imputed to the prosecution for purposes of the prosecutor’s Brady duties, the prosecutor bears the responsibility for implementing procedures designed to ensure that police officers turn over all evidence to him.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Affirmed by published per curiam opinion. Chief Judge WILKINSON wrote an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Judge WIDENER, Judge WILKINS, Judge NIEMEYER, Judge WILLIAMS, and Judge TRAXLER joined. Judge MURNAGHAN wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL, Judge DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Judge KING, and Senior Judge HAMILTON joined, Judge LUTTIG wrote a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This case came to be argued before the en banc court on October 25, 1999. The judgment of the district court is hereby affirmed by an equally divided en banc court. Separate opinions follow seriatim.
AFFIRMED.