GEORGE EDWARD CLARK; KEVIN HARRINGTON v. ANTHONY ABDALLAH; KEVIN SMITH - Articles

All Content

GEORGE EDWARD CLARK; KEVIN HARRINGTON v. ANTHONY ABDALLAH; KEVIN SMITH

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 13, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kali M. L. Henderson, SEWARD HENDERSON, PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Wolfgang Mueller, WOLF MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kali M. L. Henderson, T. Joseph Seward, Michael A. Knoblock, SEWARD HENDERSON, PLLC, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Wolfgang Mueller, WOLF MUELLER LAW FIRM, Novi, Michigan, for Appellees.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, MOORE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This § 1983 case concerns alleged constitutional violations in the investigation and prosecution of George Clark and Kevin Harrington. Clark and Harrington spent nearly two decades in prison before the Wayne County Prosecution Integrity Unit determined that they did not receive a fair trial because their murder convictions were secured based on the testimony of a singular eyewitness, who claimed she had been coerced to lie by detectives. Following dismissal of the charges and Clark’s and Harrington’s releases from prison, the men sued those detectives for violating their constitutional rights. After discovery, the district court granted in part and denied in part the detectives’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Specifically, the district court denied qualified immunity on the men’s claims that the detectives fabricated the statement of the eyewitness, facilitated their prosecution without probable cause, and violated the Brady rule by withholding evidence that detectives threatened and offered benefits to key witnesses. The detectives filed an interlocutory appeal on the denial of qualified immunity. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of qualified immunity and REMAND for trial on the merits.

Attachments: