Background
Keith Carnes was convicted of murder in 2005 based primarily on eyewitness testimony from Lorianne Morrow and Wendy Lockett. He was sentenced to life without parole. In 2022, the Missouri Supreme Court granted habeas relief, finding that prosecutors had suppressed material evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland. After serving 18 years in prison, Carnes was released and charges were dismissed.
Carnes filed a § 1983 civil rights action against four Kansas City police commissioners, various police officers and detectives involved in the investigation, and prosecutor Amy McGowan. He alleged violations of his due process rights through evidence fabrication, evidence suppression, and a reckless investigation. At the district court level, summary judgment was denied for Detectives Robert Blehm and Avery Williamson on the reckless investigation claim, and for Prosecutor McGowan on qualified immunity and prosecutorial immunity grounds. The detectives and prosecutor appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity for Detectives Blehm and Williamson on the reckless investigation claim. The court found that a reasonable factfinder could determine the detectives acted recklessly by accepting witness testimony that contradicted physical evidence and contained verified falsehoods. Witness Morrow claimed she saw Carnes roll White’s body over and shoot him five times at close range in a parking lot, yet physical evidence showed no bullets, fragments, or casings in the parking lot. Witness Lockett gave similarly inconsistent accounts and alleged Detective Williamson coerced or coached her while under the influence of drugs to implicate Carnes—conduct the court found rises to an investigation that “shocks the conscience.”
The court identified additional recklessness in the detectives’ failure to adequately investigate suspects Kitchen and Thomas. Kitchen admitted being at the murder scene and was identified as the owner of the murder weapon, yet despite contradictions in their statements and lack of follow-up, the detectives failed to pursue them as suspects. For Prosecutor McGowan, the court held there was a genuine dispute of material fact about whether she coerced Morrow to identify Carnes before probable cause existed, precluding absolute prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors performing investigative functions before establishing probable cause are not entitled to immunity for suppressing or fabricating evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Qualified immunity does not shield detectives from liability for recklessly accepting conflicting witness testimony while ignoring physical evidence and pursuing an unsupported theory
- Witness interviews containing coercion, inconsistencies, or contradictions with other evidence can constitute investigative misconduct that “shocks the conscience”
- Prosecutors performing investigative functions before probable cause is established are not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for evidence suppression or fabrication
- Detectives’ failure to investigate alternative suspects despite inconsistent statements and physical evidence pointing elsewhere supports a recklessness finding
Why It Matters
This decision holds detectives and prosecutors accountable when investigations prioritize a particular theory over evidence. By denying qualified immunity, the court allows civil liability to proceed, signaling that law enforcement cannot ignore conflicting evidence or pursue a suspect recklessly without facing consequences. The ruling reinforces that detectives have an affirmative obligation to adequately investigate and critically evaluate witness testimony, particularly when it conflicts with physical evidence or is inconsistent across interviews.
The decision also clarifies that prosecutorial immunity does not extend to investigative functions performed before probable cause is established, ensuring prosecutors cannot shield themselves from liability for misconduct occurring during case development. The ruling underscores the constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants and reinforces Brady obligations, while making clear that evidence suppression and witness coercion—even when part of case building—can constitute actionable misconduct subject to damages liability.