X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Kerr County Sheriff’s Deputy Carol Twiss investigated charges brought by a young girl that she was being sexually molested by her grandfather and another person she called “Mr. M.” Twiss suspected Harold Shields as being “Mr. M.” She presented her evidence to a grand jury confirming her suspicions, which included the girl’s identification of Shields from a photographic line-up. The grand jury returned an indictment charging Shields with aggravated sexual assault. Before trial, however, the girl recanted her allegations concerning “Mr. M,” so the charges were dismissed. Shields filed a federal civil rights suit Kerr County, Twiss and one other employee. He brought claims of: 1. unreasonable arrest; 2. unreasonable detention; 3. malicious prosecution; 4. unreasonable investigation; 5. failure to supervise (against Kerr County) resulting in an inadequate investigation; and 6. failure to supervise and train (against Kerr County) with respect to the use of photographic lineups. Using the district court’s supplemental jurisdiction, Shields also raised state law claims against Twiss and the other employee for false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and negligent investigation. During the course of the litigation, Shields sought to depose several members of the grand jury that indicted him. He claimed that he needed their testimony to show that the indictment against him was faulty because the jurors had not be presented with exculpatory evidence, such as Shields’ impotence. After some back and forth of various motions, the district court eventually granted the defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas for the grand jurors’ testimony and denied Shields’ motion to reconsider. Shields then filed a petition in Texas state court seeking to depose the grand jurors. At the same time, he asked the district court to stay his case pending the outcome of the Texas case. The district court denied the stay. The district court then granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions. Shields now appeals the order quashing the deposition subpoenas, and the order granting summary judgment to the defendants. HOLDING:Affirmed. Noting that grand jury proceedings are traditionally secret, the court also acknowledges that material from the proceeding may be released where the petitioner shows a particularized need for it. Shields says he needs to depose the grand jurors because no other record of the proceeding exits, and deposition testimony will be the only way he’ll be able to determine if exculpatory evidence was withheld. The court finds Shields has not a particularized need for compelling disclosure. He has not offered any evidence that exculpatory evidence was indeed withheld. On the other hand, Twiss filed a sworn affidavit saying she presented all such evidence. Without some evidence to support Shields’ claims that the defendants withheld exculpatory evidence, the district court had no reason to believe that the depositions were necessary to avoid a possible injustice, one of the elements required for a showing of a particularized need for grand jury material. “Even if Shields had put forward evidence of his need for grand jury material � something he has not done � there is still the question of whether he could ever compel the depositions of grand jury members. Shields has pointed to no authority for the proposition that one can take the depositions of grand jury members when, as is the case here, there is no transcript of the grand jury proceeding.” The court then rebuffs Shields’ argument that the district court should have granted his motion for a stay. The court notes that the state court litigation has now been completely resolved against Shields, as the Texas Supreme Court on Feb. 13, 2004, denied review the trial court’s denial of Shields’ petition. The court turns next to the summary judgment. With respect to Shields’ unreasonable arrest, unreasonable detention, and malicious prosecution claims, the court finds that Shields has not stated a cognizable federal claim. Such claims were rejected by this court in Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939.(5th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Nor has Shields pointed to any legal basis for a 1983 action for unreasonable investigation. As to Shields’ two failure-to-supervise claims, Shields has put forward no evidence that Kerr County had a policy or training program that encouraged the use of unconstitutional photographic lineups. Likewise, he has not pointed to any evidence that Kerr County was deliberately indifferent to the constitutional rights of its residents. Finally, the court upholds the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment on Shields’ state law claims. OPINION:King, C.J.; King, C.J., Barksdale and Pickering, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.