Kevin Lackey spent 22 years incarcerated after a 1993 Michigan conviction. His convictions were later vacated after questions emerged concerning dog-tracking evidence used in the case.
Lackey sued Detroit police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Sixth Circuit rejected his constitutional claim.
The court explained that Brady v. Maryland does not require police to assemble a defendant’s defense or explain how much weight the defense should assign to evidence already disclosed.
Because Lackey failed to establish a constitutional violation, the officers received qualified immunity.
Why It Matters to IA
This decision gives investigators an important Brady/Giglio distinction.
Ask three separate questions:
Did government personnel possess favorable evidence?
Was the evidence disclosed?
Is the complaint instead about the quality, interpretation, or completeness of the investigation?
Those are different issues.
A poor investigation does not automatically become a Brady violation.
IA investigators reviewing disclosure allegations should reconstruct:
Evidence existence → investigator knowledge → prosecutor knowledge → disclosure → timing
Do not rely on broad allegations such as:
“The officer withheld exculpatory information.”
Identify the exact evidence.
Then determine whether investigators concealed it, failed to transmit it, or simply failed to interpret it as the defense later argued they should have.
Why It Matters to Commanders
This case should not be read as permission for weak investigations.
The court addressed constitutional liability under Brady.
Agency standards can remain higher.
Commanders should still require investigators to:
Document weaknesses in forensic or investigative evidence.
Preserve contradictory information.
Forward material information to prosecutors.
Avoid overstating investigative certainty.
Correct material inaccuracies when identified.
