# J. Gilliam v. Kenneth Sealey

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · July 30, 2019 · 932 F.3d 216

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889027

## Case

- **Full name:** J. Duane GILLIAM, Guardian of the Estate of Leon Brown; Raymond C. Tarlton, Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Lee McCollum, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and Henry Lee McCollum; Leon Brown; Geraldine Brown Ransom, Guardian of Leon Brown; Kimberly Pinchbeck, as Limited Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Henry Lee McCollum, Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth SEALEY, Both Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Sheriff of Robeson County; Robert E. Price, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Joel Garth Locklear, Sr., Defendants - Appellants, and Robeson County; Town of Red Springs; Kenneth Snead; Joel Garth Locklear; Larry Floyd; Leroy Allen ; Estate of Luther Haggins; Geraldine Britt Haggins, as Administratix/Executrix of the Estate of Luther Haggins; Paul Canady, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Luther Haggins; Fayetteville Observer-Times ; Associated Press; WTVD Television LLC ; Charlotte Observer, Defendants. J. Duane Gilliam, Guardian of the Estate of Leon Brown; Raymond C. Tarlton, Guardian Ad Litem for Henry Lee McCollum, Plaintiffs - Appellees, and Henry Lee McCollum; Leon Brown; Geraldine Brown Ransom, Guardian of Leon Brown; Kimberly Pinchbeck, as Limited Guardian and Conservator of the Estate of Henry Lee McCollum, Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth Snead; Leroy Allen, Defendants - Appellants, and Robeson County; Town of Red Springs; Kenneth Sealey, Both Individually and in His Official Capacity as the Sheriff of Robeson County; Joel Garth Locklear; Larry Floyd; Estate of Luther Haggins; Geraldine Britt Haggins, as Administratix/Executrix of the Estate of Luther Haggins; Paul Canady, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Luther Haggins; Robert E. Price, Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Joel Garth Locklear, Sr.; Fayetteville Observer-Times ; Associated Press; WTVD Television LLC ; Charlotte Observer, Defendants.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 30, 2019
- **Citations:** 932 F.3d 216
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Richardson
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Thacker, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 79 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889027

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that confessions by “serious[ly] intellectual[ly] disabled[]” suspects were involuntary in combination with numerous other factors, and reaching that conclusion “in light of all of the above”
- holding “there can be no reasonable dispute . . . that an individual has a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the intentional, bad-faith withholding of evidence by an investigating officer”
- finding that plaintiff had adequately alleged bad faith in light of allegations that the defendants “intentionally fabricated, obscured, and failed to disclose the most relevant and exculpatory evidence in the case”
- recognizing clearly established “constitutional rights not to be imprisoned and convicted based on coerced, falsified, and fabricated evidence or confessions”
- finding questions of fact remained in a § 1983 case regarding probable cause to arrest plaintiffs based on allegedly involuntary confessions

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I agree that the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims should survive summary
judgment and that their Fifth Amendment claims arising from their confessions and Mary Richards's statement should likewise go to trial. However, on the remaining due process claims-the officers' failure to investigate Artis, the coercive questioning of Sinclair, and the failure to disclose their impressions of Artis as a suspect-the Plaintiffs fail to articulate the violation of a constitutional right. And even if they could, these alleged due process rights were not clearly established in 1983. I would therefore reverse on these remaining Fifth Amendment claims.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9889027. Public record. Not legal advice.