(CN) - A California man who was cleared of
attempted murder by a jury can pursue false-arrest claims against cops and
others, the 9th Circuit ruled Tuesday.
The federal appeals court in Pasadena
found that Donald Wige's civil claims are not barred by the doctrine of issue
preclusion just because a magistrate judge found probable cause to try him
during a preliminary hearing.
Wige went to trial for the drive-by
shooting of Carlos Torres. Prosecutors had no physical evidence implicating him
in the shooting, but Torres identified Wige in a photographic lineup, according
to the ruling.
California charged Wige with attempted
murder, but a jury acquitted him after Torres testified that he had been pressured
by detectives to finger Wige. Ryan Bellows, the lead detective on the case,
denied pressuring Torres in any way.
Wige spent about 10 months in jail
awaiting trial. Once out, he sued Bellows, the city of Los Angeles and others
for false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow in Los
Angeles granted the defendants summary judgment, finding that the magistrate's
original probable cause finding prohibited Wige from "relitigating"
the issue.
A
three-judge appellate panel reversed Tuesday, finding that the doctrine of
issue preclusion does not apply to the case because Wige "raised a
'genuine dispute' as to whether Bellows fabricated evidence at the preliminary
hearing by falsely testifying that Torres had identified Wige as the
shooter."
"Wige does not rely on mere
speculation that Cop Bellows fabricated evidence; he relies on testimony under
oath from Torres himself that the cops pressured him into making a false
identification," Judge Paul Watford wrote for the panel. "That
alleged fabrication plainly meets the materiality threshold for defeating
summary judgment on the merits: All agree that a valid identification by Torres
would support a finding of probable cause, but that without his identification
probable cause would be absent."
"Having heard the conflicting
evidence, he court did not decide whether Cop Bellows or Torres was telling the
truth; it decided only that a reasonable jury could believe either one,"
he added.