Chestnut v. Kincaid

ALFRED CHESTNUT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD KINCAID, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. RDB-20-2342

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

April 28, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case arises out of the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of Plaintiffs Alfred Chestnut ("Chestnut"), Andrew Stewart, Jr. ("Stewart"), and Ransom Watkins ("Watkins") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") for felony murder of a 14-year-old boy named DeWitt Duckett in 1983. (ECF No. 1.) On November 25, 2019, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Writ of Actual Innocence, vacating the Plaintiffs' convictions and granting the three men immediate release.¹ (Id. ¶ 6.) On August 13, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed nine-count Complaint in this Court against the Baltimore Police Department,² as well as former homicide detectives Donald Kincaid ("Kincaid"), Josh Barrick ("Barrick"), and Bryn Joyce ("Joyce") (collectively "Individual Defendants" or "Officer Defendants"), alleging that they "spent part of their childhood and their entire adult lives in prison as a result ofmisconduct at the hands of detectives acting in accordance with the unconstitutional polices, practices, and customs of the Baltimore Police Department." (Id. ¶ 7.) On November 20, 2020, the Individual Defendants and the Baltimore Police Department each filed Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF Nos. 21, 23), each seeking complete dismissal of all claims against them.³ The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, the Motions (ECF Nos. 21, 23) will be DENIED.

BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, this Court "accept[s] as true all well-pleaded facts in a complaint and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Wikimedia Found. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 208 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing SD3, LLC v. Black & Decker (U.S.) Inc., 801 F.3d 412, 422 (4th Cir. 2015)).

A. Investigation and Conviction of Chestnut, Stewart, and Watkins

On November 18, 1983, Plaintiffs Chestnut, Stewart, and Watkins, along with two other friends (minors, referred to throughout at A.D. and C.D.), visited Harlem Park Junior High School where they used to be students. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 40.) Around 12:45 p.m., a security officer escorted the five boys off the school grounds and watched them walk up the street away from the school. (Id. ¶ 41.) The security officer then locked the school's entrances and exits. (Id.)

Around 1:18 p.m. that same day, Harlem Park student DeWitt Duckett was headed to lunch with three friends, minors who will be referred to as E.C., R.B., and J.C. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 31-32, 35.) One of the three friends, J.C., turned back to grab something that he left behind. (Id.) Duckett was approached from behind by an individual carrying a .22-caliber revolver who demanded Duckett give him the Georgetown University starter jacket he was wearing that day. (Id. ¶ 33.) Before Duckett could remove the jacket, the individual shot him once in the neck, took the jacket, and fled the school. (Id. ¶¶ 34-36.) J.C., who was on his way back to his friends, saw the shooter but was standing too far away to make out his face. (Id. ¶ 37.) Duckett was pronounced dead at the hospital two hours later. (Id. ¶ 38.) He was 14 years old. (Id. ¶ 31.) His friends, E.C., R.B., and J.C. were 14, 15, and 16, respectively. (Id. ¶ 44.)

Shorty after the murder, Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") Officer Christopher Rayburn arrived at the school, where he learned that Duckett's three friends had potentially witnessed the murder. (Id. ¶ 43.) Officer Rayburn spoke with the friends, who reported that a single individual had approached Duckett, demanded his jacket, and shot him. (Id. ¶ 45.) Officer Rayburn included such information in a report he wrote that day, November 18. (Id.)

The BPD Homicide Unit then took over the investigation of Duckett's murder. (Id. ¶ 47.) Defendant Kincaid was the lead investigator of the murder. (Id. ¶ 48.) Defendants Joyce and Barrick were members of the investigative team. (Id.) At the time, Barrick was also the immediate supervisor of the unit as a sergeant. (Id.) The Plaintiffs allege that as the supervisor, Barrick was responsible for providing leadership and reviewing all witness statements taken by the detectives. (Id. ¶ 49.) The Plaintiffs also generally allege that the Officer Defendants worked collaboratively throughout the investigation, sharing information with each other as itwas gathered and summarizing their progress in notes and reports that were provided to the commanding officer. (Id. ¶ 50.)

The day after the murder, knowing that the Plaintiffs had been present at the school that day, the Officer Defendants questioned Chestnut and Watkins. (Id. ¶¶ 51-51.) According to the Plaintiffs, when Kincaid questioned Watkins he stated, "You have two things against you—you're black and I have a badge." (Id. ¶ 53.) The Officer Defendants also later interrogated Stewart. (Id. ¶ 54.) In those initial interrogations, each of the Plaintiffs asserted that they had nothing to do with the murder. (Id. ¶ 55.)

In the four days after the murder, the Officer Defendants also questioned two of Duckett's friends who had been walking with him to lunch: R.B., who remained with Duckett the entire time, and J.C., who had turned back to grab something he left behind. (Id. ¶ 56.) The Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants questioned each of the students at least three time and showed them multiple photo arrays, including arrays with pictures of the Plaintiffs, but neither of the children identified the Plaintiffs as being involved in their friend's murder. (Id. ¶ 56.) Plaintiffs assert that these interviewers were not memorialized, and any statements made by R.B. and J.C. at that time were not disclosed to the State's Attorney's Office or the defense. (Id. ¶ 57.)

Around the same time of these initial interviews with the Plaintiffs and R.B. and J.C. (on or before November 22), the Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants received information regarding a man, referred to here as John Doe,⁴ who was seen running away fromHarlem park and throwing down a gun on the day of Duckett's murder. (Id. ¶ 58.) The Plaintiffs also allege that the Officer Defendants learned that that same man was wearing a Georgetown jacket on the night of the murder. (Id.)

On November 23, 1983, the Officer Defendants interviewed another minor student at Harlem Park, Y.T. (Id. ¶ 60.) The thirteen-year-old girl allegedly told the Officer Defendants that she had not seen the shooting of Duckett and did not know who was involved. (Id. ¶ 61.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Kincaid and Barrick coerced and intimidated this girl into adopting "their false version of events." (Id. ¶ 62.) Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that they pressured Y.T. into making up details during the interrogation such as that she saw two guns and heard two shots. (Id. ¶ 63.) The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants knew these details to be false because Y.T. could not have seen the murder from where she was standing at the time of the shot. (Id. ¶ 64.) Kincaid and Barrick allegedly wrote out a false statement that implicated the Plaintiffs and coerced Y.T. into signing the document. (Id. ¶ 66.) Kincaid and Barrick also allegedly coerced her into identifying photos of the Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 67.) No notes or reports related to this interview have been produced. (Id. ¶ 68.)

That same day, Officer Defendants interviewed another student, F.H., who was with Y.T. at the time of the murder. (Id. ¶ 69.) The Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants concealed evidence of this interview, including information regarding where F.H. and Y.T. were standing at the time of the murder and that F.H. did not identify the Plaintiffs in a photo array. (Id. ¶ 69.) Again, no notes or report for this interview have been produced. (Id.)

After these interviews with Y.T. and F.H., the Officer Defendants decided to re-interview Duckett's friends, this time picking up all three students, E.C, R.B., and J.C. andbringing them to meet with the Homicide Unit. (Id. ¶ 70.) On November 23, 1983, the Officer Defendants allegedly threatened and intimidated the students, accusing them of lying about what they knew about Duckett's murder and supplying them with the Officers' own version of the facts. (Id. ¶ 71.) The Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants used suggestive tactics with photo arrays and encouraged the witnesses to select photos of the Plaintiffs, while discouraging them from selecting photos of other individuals. (Id.) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Kincaid and Joyce suggested and/or fabricated a false statement for E.C., telling him that they knew from the statements of Y.T. that the Plaintiffs had committed the crime. (Id. ¶ 72.) Under "intense pressure," E.C. ultimately stated that the Plaintiffs killed Duckett and selected them in a photo array. (Id.) Kincaid and another detective then physically threatened R.B., told him that another witness had already identified the Plaintiffs, and coerced him into falsely stating the Plaintiffs had committed the crime and identifying the three teens in a photo array. (Id. ¶ 73.) Finally, Kincaid and another detective also coerced J.C., getting him to state that the Plaintiffs murdered Duckett and to select the individuals from a photo array. (Id. ¶ 74.) Again, no notes or records from these November 23 interrogations have been produced. (Id. ¶ 75.)

Overall, the Plaintiffs allege that the Officer Defendants had reason to know that the statements of Y.T. and Duckett's three friends, E.C., R.B., and J.C., were false. (Id. ¶ 76.) According to the Plaintiffs, the students' statements contradicted their prior statements in which they reported that they saw one individual approach the victim and that the Plaintiffs were not involved. (Id.) Additionally,...