## Facts

- Dennis Patrick Brown was convicted in 1984 of rape in Covington, Louisiana, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Physical evidence (including a minipad, underwear, and rape-exam specimens) was submitted to the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory for serological testing.
- Brown was placed in a lineup (as a “fill-in”), was identified by the victim, and had blood, hair, and saliva samples taken; he alleged the investigating officer’s submission to the lab noted the lineup identification to bias testing.
- Nace Jerry Miller, a state crime-lab technician, conducted ABO blood-typing analysis comparing Brown’s blood to a blood-and-semen mixture recovered from the evidence.
- Brown alleged the serology findings were scientifically ambiguous and consistent with multiple scenarios, including ones not identifying him as the semen source.
- Brown alleged Miller reported and/or presented the serology in a misleading way and failed to disclose exculpatory interpretations that would have weakened the prosecution’s theory.
- About twenty years later, DNA testing exonerated Brown; he was released.
- Brown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations tied to the handling and presentation of the serological evidence.
- Miller moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on qualified-immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion, and Miller filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged a due process violation based on a forensic technician’s alleged misrepresentation of, or failure to disclose, material exculpatory serological information used in a criminal prosecution.
2. Whether the asserted fair-trial right was clearly established in 1984 for purposes of qualified immunity.
3. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction over arguments that effectively disputed the complaint’s factual allegations rather than presenting purely legal qualified-immunity questions.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part the denial of qualified immunity, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of a clearly established due process right.
- The court dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction to the extent the appeal challenged the plaintiff’s factual allegations or sought recharacterization of the scientific evidence at the pleading stage.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a Rule 12(b)(6) denial of qualified immunity, courts accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Qualified immunity turns on (1) whether the pleaded facts state a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right was clearly established at the time.
- Due process is violated when a state actor deliberately or recklessly presents materially false or misleading evidence that contributes to an unfair trial.
- Due process also forbids suppression or nondisclosure of material exculpatory information, including laboratory information that meaningfully undercuts the prosecution’s case.
- In interlocutory qualified-immunity appeals, appellate jurisdiction is limited to purely legal questions; fact disputes about what occurred or what the evidence showed are generally not reviewable at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that allegations a state crime-lab technician misleadingly presented serological results and withheld material exculpatory interpretations stated a clearly established due process claim sufficient to defeat qualified immunity on a motion to dismiss, while attempts to contest the pleaded facts were outside interlocutory appellate jurisdiction.


Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2008)