AARON SALTER v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, DONALD OLSEN - Articles

All Content

AARON SALTER v. CITY OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, DONALD OLSEN

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 21, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Mark Granzotto, MARK GRANZOTTO, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellee.

Judge(s): BATCHELDER, NALBANDIAN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

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

BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. Aaron Salter spent 15 years in prison for a deadly shooting he did not commit. Salter’s conviction rested on a single eyewitness’s testimony identifying him as one of two shooters. There was no physical evidence or other witness tying Salter to the murder. Instead, the eyewitness identified Salter when the lead investigator, Detective Donald Olsen, showed him a single mug shot of only Salter and said that police had already arrested one of the shooters. That same eyewitness testified that he also identified a different man as the shooter from a photo array. And that man more closely resembled the witness’s description of the shooter than Salter. The investigator’s file also contained a separate closeup photo of that man, suggesting he was a suspect. Salter claims that Detective Olsen failed to disclose any of this information, leading to an unfair trial and his wrongful conviction. In this civil rights lawsuit, Salter contends that Detective Olsen violated his constitutional rights in two ways: first, by withholding favorable evidence pointing to a different suspect, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); and second, by conducting an unnecessarily suggestive identification process that led to the eyewitness’s false identification of Salter. Detective Olsen moved for summary judgment on both these claims, arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and Detective Olsen appealed. Because we do not have interlocutory jurisdiction over several aspects of this appeal, we dismiss in part. For the parts we review on the merits, we affirm.

Attachments: