Defendant's Attorney: Kali M.L. Henderson

Description: Justice Went To Hell in Detroit, Michigan George Edward Clark and Kevin Harrington were wrongfully convicted of a murder that they did not commit.

This § 1983 case concerns alleged constitutional violations in the investigation and prosecution of George Clark and Kevin Harrington. Clark and Harrington spent nearly two decades in prison before the Wayne County Prosecution Integrity Unit determined that they did not receive a fair trial because their murder convictions were secured based on the testimony of a singular eyewitness, who claimed she had been coerced to lie by detectives. Following dismissal of the charges and Clark’s and Harrington’s releases from prison, the men sued those detectives for violating their constitutional rights.

After discovery, the district court granted in part and denied in part the detectives’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Specifically, the district court denied qualified immunity on the men’s claims that the detectives fabricated the statement of the eyewitness, facilitated their prosecution without probable cause, and violated the Brady rule by withholding evidence that detectives threatened and offered benefits to key witnesses. The detectives filed an interlocutory appeal on the denial of qualified immunity.

* * *

Around 11 a.m. on September 27, 2002, a boy distributing church fliers discovered the body of man with gunshot wounds near a wooded area in Inkster, Michigan. Clark v. Abdallah, No. 21-10001, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2023). The young man flagged down a woman, Bearia Stewart, who identified the body as that of Michael Martin. Id.; see R. 138-2 (Def. Martin Incident Report) (Page ID #4062). Stewart called police, and Inkster Police detectives arrived on scene to investigate. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1. Stewart spoke with Detective Paul Martin and advised him that she saw George Clark at the house from 12 to 3 p.m. the day before. Id. Stewart was then taken to the Inkster Police Department, where she was given Miranda warnings and interviewed for five hours by Detective Anthony Abdallah and Sergeant Kevin Smith (“Defendants”). Id.

At the outset of the interrogation, Stewart denied knowing anything about the murder “at least 26 times.” Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1. Detective Abdallah almost immediately suspected she was not telling the whole truth and began pressuring her to describe what happened. See id.; R. 138-3 (Revised Stewart Tr. at 9) (Page ID #4072). Abdallah began saying things like, “The faster you talk to us, the faster I can you get [sic] back home to your kids . . . The longer your kids are away from you, the faster – I mean, we – if you’re going to stay here, we’re going to call Social Services and have your kids picked up because you’re locked up.” R. 138-3 (Revised Stewart Tr. at 42) (Page ID #4105); see Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1. Smith added, “We can’t release you knowing that you know stuff.” R. 138-3 (Revised Stewart Tr. at 42) (Page ID #4105). Stewart was crying and expressed that she was “scared.” R. 138-3 (Revised Stewart Tr. at 28) (Page ID #4091). Abdallah suggested she was “scared because [she didn’t] want to be telling,” but Stewart responded that she “kn[e]w nothing.” Id.

“Faced with the threat of jail and the loss of her children, Stewart’s story started to evolve.” Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1. As the police officers suggested versions of what might have occurred the night before, Stewart offered up a confusing array of stories. For example, Stewart stated that Clark had been to visit Martin and the two had been fighting, but she said this occurred from 11 to 3 in the evening. R. 138-3 (Revised Stewart Tr. at 8, 10–11) (Page ID #4071, 4073–74). Abdallah later suggested that Stewart “got up in the middle of the night and . . . saw something,” which Stewart first denied, then admitted. Id. at 30–31 (Page ID #4093–94). Later, Stewart told Defendants that she had seen Clark’s car at Martin’s house around 11:30 p.m. Id. at 43 (Page ID #4106). Then she heard a gunshot and saw Clark get back to his car but did not see the shooting. Id. at 45 (Page ID #4108). At this point, Abdallah told Stewart that she was “that close to telling the truth” but “just won’t cross over that line.” Id. at 48 (Page ID #4111). Then, Defendants took an unrecorded, 40-minute break. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1.

Upon return from the break, the officers re-Mirandized Stewart, who was now prepared to offer a consistent narrative. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *1; see R. 138-4 (Original Stewart Tr. at 36–37) (Page ID #4152–53). She told Defendants that around 11:00 to 11:30 p.m., she got up to smoke a cigarette, saw a grey car pull up outside, and noticed Clark knock on Martin’s door. R. 138-4 (Original Stewart Tr. at 38) (Page ID #4154). She heard Martin and Clark argue and then saw Clark hit Martin in the chest. Id. Clark then walked back to his car before returning with his hand behind his back, this time saying he would kill Martin if he did not give Clark his money or his dope. Id. at 39 (Page ID #4155). Now, she said, Harrington stepped out of the car and the two men started beating Martin and dragged him to the bushes. Id. After that, Stewart heard gunshots. Id. at 40 (Page ID #4156). Stewart said she ran inside but soon heard a loud thumping on the door and voices demanding she open it. Id. It was Clark and Harrington threatening to blow up her house and her kids if she called the police. Id. After the interview, Stewart was allowed to return home.

Three days later, on September 30, 2002, Tyrhonda Moore went to talk with Inkster Police about the murder. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. Moore told Abdallah that she was with Clark at the time he was allegedly murdering Martin. Id. She gave a statement saying that they had been at Martin’s house but left around 10:30 p.m. and went to White Castle and a drive-in movie, returning to Martin’s house around 3:30 or 4 a.m. R. 138-7 (Moore Statement at 1) (Page ID #4164). The next day, Clark told her that Martin had been killed. Id. In a recent deposition, Moore stated that during the interview, Abdallah immediately accused her of lying and began threatening her: “like I was in love with Mr. Clark, that’s why I came down there lying and that I was gonna do time and I’m only 18 years old and I need to think about myself and—yeah. They were like all in my face, yelling and cussing.” R. 138-17 (Moore Dep. Tr. at 44) (Page ID #4232); see Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. As she understood it, Abdallah wanted her to change her statement. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. She said that the detectives “locked [her] up [in a holding cell] for . . . two, maybe three days . . . act[ing] like they were charging [her] with obstruction of justice.” R. 138-17 (Moore Dep. Tr. at 45) (Page ID #4233); see Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. Moore has maintained that the statement she gave to police at that time was accurate. R. 138-17 (Moore Dep. Tr. at 27–42) (Page ID #4215–30).1

Clark and Harrington were arrested on murder charges. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. Following their arrests, each man received a preliminary-examination hearing before a state judge to determine if there was probable cause for their continued detention. Id. Stewart’s testimony was the sole, substantive evidence presented at the hearings. Id. (“No other evidence linked them to the crime.”). Stewart testified consistent with the ultimate statement she gave to police, and the state judges found probable cause. Id.

A day before Clark and Harrington’s joint trial was scheduled to begin, Tammy Wiseman, a friend of Stewart’s, was arrested for shoplifting in Taylor, Michigan. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *3. Finding a subpoena to testify at Plaintiffs’ trial in her purse, authorities contacted Abdallah. Id. Wiseman had been called as a defense witness in the case, and she planned to testify at trial that she was with Stewart on the night of Martin’s murder, thereby impeaching Stewart’s testimony that she witnessed the murder. Id. When she told this to Abdallah, he pressured her to change her story, telling her “‘over and over and over’ that she was lying and threatened to take her children away and lock her up unless she told him what he wanted to hear: that Plaintiffs threatened her into saying that she was with Bearia Stewart the night of the murder when she really was not.” Id. (quoting R. 138-20 (Wiseman Dep. Tr. at 83) (Page ID #4376)). In a recent deposition, Wiseman affirmed that Abdallah was “giving [her] direction of what to say” and “basically telling [her] where [he] wanted [her] to go” with her story. R. 138-20 (Wiseman Dep. Tr. at 84) (Page ID #4377). Ultimately, needing to get out of jail and fearing that Abdallah would take away her children, id. at 84–86 (Page ID #4377–79), she told law enforcement that Plaintiffs’ attorneys pressured her to lie on the stand to help their clients, see R. 138-19 (Wiseman Statement) (Page ID #4292); R. 138-20 (Wiseman Dep. Tr. at 56–57) (Page ID #4349–50). In exchange for her support, Abdallah helped her get out of jail without paying the $500 bond originally set. R. 138-20 (Wiseman Dep. Tr. at 84–85) (Page ID #4377–78).

At Clark and Harrington’s joint trial, “Stewart took the stand but refused to answer questions.” Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. The judge deemed her unavailable and allowed the prosecution to admit her prior preliminary-examination testimony as substantive evidence. Id.; see R. 153-10 (Stewart First Trial Test. at 118 (Page ID #5335)). Wiseman was also called to testify. Wiseman testified that she was not with Stewart on the night of the murder, but that Clark and Plaintiffs’ counsel had tried to convince her to lie and say she was. D. 37 (App’x at 280–88) (Wiseman First Trial Test. at 122–30); see Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *3. She further testified that, once she gave her statement to law enforcement, she received threats to deter her from appearing in court. Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *3. Both men were convicted, although Harrington’s conviction was thrown out due to attorney misconduct. Id. at *2.

Harrington would be retried three times, with the next two trials resulting in hung juries. Id. At the final trial, Stewart continued to recant her prior testimony, and the court once again admitted her preliminary-examination testimony as substantive evidence against Harrington. R. 153-11 (Fourth Stewart Trial Test. at 127–28) (Page ID #5543–44). Stewart also told the jury that she had been “forced by the police” to inculpate Clark and Harrington because “[a]t the time I was scared of the police because they threatened to take my kids and put me in jail.” R. 153-11 (Fourth Stewart Trial Test. Day 1 at 153–54) (Page ID #5570–71); see Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *2. Stewart also admitted that she had been addicted to cocaine at the time of the hours-long police interview. R. 153-11 (Fourth Stewart Trial Test. Day 2 at 38) (Page ID #5669). At this trial, Wiseman recanted her earlier trial testimony and testified that she “was with Stewart on the night of the murder.” Clark, 2023 WL 4852230, at *3. She also testified on cross-examination that she lied to Abdallah because she was desperate to get out of jail and back to her three children, and that she had a heroin and crack-cocaine addiction at the time. Id. Further, she testified that in exchange for her false statements, Abdallah arranged her release from jail without paying bail. Id. Nonetheless, Wiseman’s earlier statement and trial testimony were admitted into evidence. D. 37 (App’x at 493) (Wiseman Fourth Trial Test. at 78). Harrington finally was convicted.2

After many years of unsuccessful appeals and habeas applications, Clark finally brought a second or successive habeas application with potential merit. The application was based on newly discovered evidence and relied on an affidavit from a new witness, Kaneka Jackson, who said she saw a different man place a gun behind Martin’s head and walk him into the woods before hearing three gunshots. See In re Clark, No. 15-2156, 2016 WL 11270015, at *3 (6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016). Jackson claimed that she told her father, Inkster Police Lieutenant Gregory Hill, what she had witnessed, but he told her to stay quiet so as not to endanger herself. Id. We granted Clark’s motion to file a second or successive petition as to the potential Brady violation, id., and later ordered an evidentiary hearing, Clark v. Warden, 934 F.3d 483, 494 (6th Cir. 2019).

Meanwhile, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) conducted a six-month investigation into the case. See R. 138-22 (Press Release) (Page ID #4438). On April 23, 2020, the CIU announced that its investigation revealed “new witnesses and evidence” and “established that Mr. Harrington and Mr. Clark did not receive a fair trial as a result of the conduct of the original lead detective,” including a “disturbing pattern of behavior . . . that involved threatening and coercing a number of witnesses.” Id. The CIU noted that no physical evidence linked Clark or Harrington to the crime scene, and the “only inculpatory witness repeatedly said they saw nothing and that they were coerced.” Id. (Page ID #4437–38). The charges were dismissed, and the CIU announced that the case would not be retried; the office did not reach any conclusion regarding their actual innocence. Id. Clark and Harrington subsequently received compensation under the Michigan Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act. See Clark v. Abdallah, No. 21-10001, 2023 WL 4851410, at *1 (E.D. Mich. July 28, 2023).

* * *
Clark and Harrington filed the present suit against Detective Abdallah, Sergeant Smith, Lieutenant Hill, and the City of Inkster, on January 4, 2021. The operative, amended complaint alleged: (1) Abdallah and Smith deliberately and knowingly fabricated evidence to secure their convictions, including threatening and coercing Stewart, Moore, and Wiseman to make false, inculpatory statements, contrary to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (Count I); (2) Abdallah and Smith maliciously prosecuted them by the same means in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Count II); (3) Abdallah, Smith, and Hill violated their rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment by not disclosing material exculpatory evidence relating to Moore, Wiseman, and Jackson under Brady (Count III); (4) the City of Inkster demonstrated deliberate indifference to their constitutional rights and was subject to municipal liability under Monell (Count IV); and (5) Abdallah, Smith, and Hill maliciously prosecuted them under Michigan common law (Count V). R. 73 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97–120) (Page ID #2250–56).

Outcome: Affirmed and remanded.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: