{"id":19503,"date":"2022-11-29T05:46:11","date_gmt":"2022-11-29T05:46:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/11\/29\/appeals-court-denies-immunity-to-officers-who-fabricated-evidence-to-wrongfully-convict-a-man-for-murder\/"},"modified":"2022-11-29T05:46:11","modified_gmt":"2022-11-29T05:46:11","slug":"appeals-court-denies-immunity-to-officers-who-fabricated-evidence-to-wrongfully-convict-a-man-for-murder","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/11\/29\/appeals-court-denies-immunity-to-officers-who-fabricated-evidence-to-wrongfully-convict-a-man-for-murder\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Officers Who Fabricated Evidence To Wrongfully Convict A Man For Murder"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the something-that-happens-far-too-often<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

When cops decide they\u2019ve found the right perp, very little can persuade them to look elsewhere. This tunnel vision has the tendency to take years of freedom<\/a> away from innocent people<\/a>. And it would be terrible enough if officers simply refused to consider exonerative evidence. But in this case (like far too many others<\/a>), the investigators went beyond simply ignoring other evidence to falsifying the \u201cevidence\u201d they had to ensure the person they picked out for the job ended up in jail.<\/p>\n

Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service has the background<\/a> on this decision<\/a> [PDF] handed down by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. <\/p>\n

\n

In 1999, Floyd Bledsoe, a 23-year-old farmhand, was living in Jefferson County, Kansas, with his wife Heidi, their two young sons and Heidi\u2019s 14-year-old sister Camille Arfmann. Bledsoe\u2019s 25-year-old brother, Tom, lived close by. Tom was \u201cpartially deaf\u201d and had \u201ccertain intellectual limitations,\u201d according to the lawsuit Floyd Bledsoe would later file, as well as a \u201chistory of troubling sexual behavior that included pursuing young girls.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

On Nov. 5, 1999, Camille went missing. Two days later, according to Bledsoe\u2019s lawsuit, Tom told both his Sunday school teacher and his parents that he had killed her. Tom\u2019s parents hired an attorney, Michael Hayes, who took Tom to the Jefferson County Sheriff\u2019s Department that same day. Tom told investigators how he killed Camille and where her body could be found. Hayes turned over the murder weapon \u2014 a recently purchased 9 mm handgun. Tom was arrested and charged with homicide.<\/em><\/p>\n

But Tom would soon change his story, recanting his confession and accusing his brother of the murder.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That led investigators to go after Floyd Bledsoe. And once they were focused on Floyd, they forgot all about Tom. Not only did they refuse to consider his recanting might be a lie, they falsified evidence to ensure the charges against Floyd stuck. Here\u2019s how it started:<\/p>\n

\n

Shortly before Tom\u2019s staged recantation,\u201d Tom\u2019s defense attorney \u201cHayes sought [Bledsoe] out and told him that Hayes was taking Tom off the \u2018hot seat\u2019 and putting [Bledsoe] on, or words to that effect.\u201d On November 12, a Kansas Bureau of Investigation (\u201cKBI\u201d) officer, Defendant Johnson, administered lie detector tests to both Tom and Bledsoe. During his exam, Tom recanted his confession and incriminated Bledsoe. But Tom \u201cfailed the question\u201d of whether he shot Camille, and was so overcome with guilt immediately after the lie detector test that he confessed again to killing Camille. Nonetheless, the KBI officer told Tom that he should continue lying to implicate Bledsoe<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Floyd Bledsoe, however, passed his lie detector test. KBI investigator Johnson stepped in again to interfere with the investigation.<\/p>\n

\n

Defendant Johnson falsified the results, however, inaccurately reporting that Tom had been truthful in denying his involvement in the murder, while Bledsoe had been deceptive in denying that he was involved. Based on those false polygraph results, the prosecutor dropped the charges against Tom<\/em>\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Tom\u2019s story was the \u201ccentral piece\u201d of the prosecution\u2019s evidence during Floyd Bledsoe\u2019s trial. According to Bledsoe, prosecutors withheld anything tying Tom to the crime, fabricated a statement from Floyd that undercut his alibi, did not disclose inculpatory statements made by Tom to Floyd\u2019s lawyer, and refused to search Tom\u2019s home or collect any other physical evidence that might have linked Tom to the murder.<\/p>\n

After sixteen years in prison, DNA testing cleared Floyd and implicated Tom Bledsoe. Tom Bledsoe committed suicide shortly after this evidence was obtained, leaving behind a suicide note apologizing for framing his brother \u2014 a note that mentioned the county attorney (Jim Vanderbilt) \u201cmade him do it\u201d and told him to \u201ckeep his mouth shut.\u201d<\/p>\n

Floyd Bledsoe sued the involved officers for violating his rights. The lower court refused to grant immunity to the officers, noting that the allegations raised by Bledsoe discussed police actions clearly established to be unlawful. The Tenth Circuit Appeals Court arrives at the same conclusion.<\/p>\n

The officers raised several arguments for being allowed to walk away from this wrongful conviction. The court doesn\u2019t like any of them, including this attempt to portray the railroading of an innocent man as nothing more than the good faith efforts of law enforcement officers just trying to do their job.<\/p>\n

\n

Appellants assert that Bledsoe\u2019s claims are facially implausible because there is an equally possible innocent explanation for their charging Bledsoe\u2014that they honestly, but mistakenly, believed he had killed Camille and that, at most, they were negligent in investigating the crime, which is not actionable under \u00a7 1983. [\u2026] Similarly, Appellants assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because, at most, they were mistaken in believing Bledsoe was guilty of Camille\u2019s rape and murder, and their investigation was at most negligent<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Wrong, says the Tenth Circuit. What Bledsoe alleges far exceeds the innocent actions of cops mistakenly going after the wrong perp. <\/p>\n

\n

Those arguments mischaracterize Bledsoe\u2019s allegations. Bledsoe alleges that Defendants fabricated false evidence against him, knowingly suppressed exculpatory evidence that would have proven his innocence, and facilitated his arrest, pretrial detention and trial without probable cause to believe he was guilty. None of those alleged actions, by definition, can be done mistakenly or \u201cinnocently.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s pretty tough to \u201cinnocently\u201d ignore a suspect\u2019s multiple confessions, failed lie detector test, and previous interactions with the murder victim. In fact, the court says, there\u2019s enough in Bledsoe\u2019s allegations to suggest the opposite of innocence: a conspiracy to violate his rights, one participated in by officers, investigators, and prosecutors.<\/p>\n

Bledsoe can move forward with his lawsuit. All but one claim survives the multiple defendants\u2019 appeal of the lower court ruling.<\/p>\n

\n

For the foregoing reasons, then, we conclude that Bledsoe adequately alleged that each Appellant participated in depriving him of his constitutional rights and that, except for the failure-to-intervene theory, the alleged constitutional violations were clearly established by 1999. Said another way, except for the failure-to-intervene claim, each Appellant was on notice in 1999 that their conduct, as Bledsoe has alleged it\u2014suppressing exculpatory evidence that would have shown Bledsoe\u2019s innocence, fabricating evidence to use against him, and using that evidence to arrest, detain and prosecute him for a crime he did not commit\u2014was unconstitutional. The district court, thus, correctly denied each Appellant qualified immunity on Bledsoe\u2019s substantive constitutional claims, and on his conspiracy and personal participation theories of liability<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This puts Bledsoe closer to obtaining some form of justice for the injustice he spent 16 years subjected to. And this overwhelming denial of qualified immunity to multiple law enforcement defendants on multiple counts will perhaps result in a settlement being offered before this goes much further in court \u2014 something that may force the involved entities to hand over evidence showing how much they screwed this innocent man. And that evidence may show this sort of behavior was routine. There\u2019s no reason to believe it isn\u2019t. Everyone sued here seemed pretty comfortable railroading an innocent man, which suggests violating rights was just considered part of the job.<\/p>\n