Judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently scrutinized the qualified-immunity doctrine, a legal standard that critics assert has shielded law enforcement officers from accountability. In a pivotal decision, the panel concluded that qualified immunity would not shield a Jackson police detective implicated in the wrongful arrest of an innocent man.
Judge Don R. Willett, in a 2-1 ruling, candidly acknowledged the issues associated with the qualified-immunity doctrine, describing it as a “judicially contrived” concept that poses legal and practical dilemmas. However, he conceded that as circuit judges, they do not possess the authority to abolish it.
The case in question traces back to an incident on February 13, 2020, when Nicholas Robertson was fatally shot upon knocking at Avery Forbes’ residence in Jackson. Two months later, the police arrested Samuel Jennings on a separate charge. During his custody, Jennings accused Desmond Green of killing Robertson. This accusation left Green astonished, as he maintained no knowledge of Robertson or involvement in the crime.
Despite Green’s adamant denial, Detective Jacquelyn Thomas and Hinds County prosecutors persuaded a grand jury to indict him, charging him with capital murder due to an alleged armed robbery. Consequently, Green was incarcerated without bail, languishing for nearly two years for a murder he did not commit.
Jennings later recanted his statement, leading to Green’s release after having spent 22 months in jail. In a subsequent lawsuit, Green accused Thomas of basing her case on the unreliable testimony of a drug-influenced jailhouse informant, manipulating photo lineups, and withholding exonerating evidence from the grand jury.
Green expressed frustration over his wrongful arrest, questioning the lack of evidence against him and lamenting the lost time from his incarceration. Thomas sought to dismiss the lawsuit based on the qualified-immunity doctrine, a legal concept established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967. This doctrine primarily protects government officials from civil suits in cases where their actions are deemed to have been taken in “good faith.”
U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves refused to dismiss the lawsuit, critiquing the qualified-immunity doctrine as enabling agents to violate constitutional rights in unprecedented manners. He advocated for juries, instead of judges, to assess the culpability of law enforcement officers.
Thomas’ appeal to the 5th Circuit claimed she was protected by immunity for any reasonable errors. However, evidence suggested discrepancies in the case narrative, indicating alternate possibilities for the crime that did not involve Green.
During an appeal hearing, Willett highlighted that Thomas possessed information contradicting any rational belief that Green was responsible for Robertson’s murder. Furthermore, Jennings’ recantation, which claimed he was under the influence of drugs, raised questions about the integrity of the original investigation. His claim that Thomas directed his identification process underscored the scrutiny of her investigative methods.
The 5th Circuit eventually remanded Green’s charges and released him from jail. Subsequently, Green initiated legal action against Thomas and the city for malicious prosecution and arrest without probable cause, contending that the grand jury proceedings were tainted.
The panel of judges from the 5th Circuit upheld Green’s claims related to Fourth Amendment false arrest and 14th Amendment due process but extended qualified immunity to Thomas concerning the malicious prosecution claim.
Jim D. Waide III, Green’s attorney, acknowledged the 5th Circuit’s willingness to follow Judge Reeves’ comprehensive opinion, highlighting dissent within the court regarding the qualified-immunity doctrine.
Conversely, Sheridan A. Carr, representing the Jackson city attorney’s office, reiterated their belief in the eventual vindication of Detective Thomas and the city. Carr emphasized that the current ruling only reflected the dismissal stage, without incorporating evidence or full context, expressing confidence that subsequent proceedings will present a clearer picture.
