Defendant's Attorney: Raleigh, North Carolina insurance defense lawyers represented the Defendants.

Description: Raleigh, North Carolina personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued the Defendants on civil rights violation theories.

According to United States District Court Judge James C. Dever, III:

"Long was wrongfully incarcerated for more than 44 years for a burglary and rape he did not commit. See Am. Compl. [D.E. 24] ¶¶ 1-2. Throughout his incarceration, Long maintained and sought to prove his innocence. See id. ¶ 27. Now free, Long alleges numerous federal and state law claims. See id. ¶¶ 30-31. In Long v. Hooks, 972 F.3d 442, 446-56 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit described in detail the underlying burglary and rape, the investigation, Long's trial, Long's persistent efforts to obtain exculpatory evidence never previously disclosed to him or his counsel, and Long's state and federal post-conviction proceedings. See id. Here, the court summarizes Long's allegations against Lea, Watters, and Starling specifically.

Lea was a special agent with the SBI and was the SBI special agent assigned to work with the City of Concord Police Department ("CPD") to investigate the rape of Juddy Bost ("Bost"). See id. ¶¶ 52, 69. Long alleges that Lea helped to collect evidence at the crime scene and interviewed Bost, Long, and an alternative suspect. See id. ¶¶ 70, 88-89. At Bost's residence, Lea and defendants Vogler and Isenhour "went through the entire Bost residence, room by room, searching for latent lifts of identifiable value" and other evidence. Id. ¶ 73. The team found burned matches and numerous latent prints at the residence. See id. ¶ 75. Long alleges that Lea knew by May 10, 1976 (i.e., the date of Long's arrest) that none of the prints found at Bost's residence matched Long. See id. ¶¶ 99, 341-42.

On May 10, 1976, CPD officers arranged for Bost to sit in Cabarrus County District Court to see if anyone appearing for court looked like her assailant. See id. ¶¶ 92-93. Long alleges that CPD officers fabricated a false trespassing charge against Long to ensure he would be in the courtroom that day. See id. ¶¶ 86-88, 96. On May 10, 1976, Long appeared for court wearing a black leather jacket, as he often did. See id. ¶ 94. And Bost identified Long in the courtroom as her attacker. See Long, 972 F.3d at 447; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94, 97-98. Soon after the Cabarrus County District Court dismissed the trespassing charge against Long, CPD officers took Bost to the police station and showed her a photo array. Long was the only person in the array wearing a leather jacket. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97-98. Bost picked Long from the photo array. See id. Long alleges that Lea participated in orchestrating these suggestive identifications of Long. See id. ¶ 86.

Long alleges that Lea, along with defendants Taylor, Vogler, and Lee, "embarked upon an illicit scheme to hide all favorable evidence from prosecutors and Long's attorneys." Id. ¶ 123. Defendants Isenhour, Taylor, Vogler, and Lee were the primary CPD officers working with Lea to investigate Bost's rape. They allegedly knew that the SBI lab reports analyzing evidence from Bost's residence "demonstrated there was no link between Long and the crime." Id. ¶ 128. Long alleges these defendants intentionally withheld these exculpatory SBI lab reports from the Cabarrus County district attorney ("DA"), thereby depriving the DA of the ability to produce that evidence to Long and his counsel. See id. ¶¶ 123, 128. In effect, Long alleges Lea and the CPD officers misled the DA. Long alleges that the DA had an " 'open file' discovery" policy and would have produced the SBI lab reports to Long. See id. ¶ 129. Moreover, Lea and the CPD officers allegedly did not even tell the DA that they had recovered numerous prints from Bost's residence. See id. ¶ 132. As a result, "Long's defense team never learned that a search for suspect prints had been undertaken and that no crime-scene fingerprints matched Long." Id.

On May 13, 1976, three days after Long's arrest, Lea conducted a polygraph examination on an alternative suspect. See id. ¶¶ 143-45. Neither Lea nor anyone else disclosed to Long and his attorneys that the examination took place until May 6, 2021, more than four decades later. See id. Long alleges that the records he now has concerning investigations into alternative suspects are still incomplete. See id. ¶ 145.

Long alleges that because of Lea's role in concealing exculpatory evidence, Long's defense team "had little evidence with which to attack [Bost's identification of Long], which was, for all intents and purposes, the entirety of the prosecution case." Id. ¶¶ 167-69. Long also alleges that Lea, along with defendants Isenhour, Taylor, Vogler, and Lee, "orchestrated and manufactured" the case the prosecution presented to the jury, leading the jury to "erroneously credit[ ] the victim's mistaken identification" of Long as her attacker. Id. ¶ 180.

During the investigation, Starling was the Director of the SBI and was responsible for training and supervising SBI employees, including Lea. See id. ¶ 54. Because the case was high profile, Lea updated Starling on the status of the investigation and prosecution of Long. See id. ¶¶ 71, 82. For example, Lea wrote correspondence to Starling concerning the case. Id. ¶ 82. Additionally, Long alleges Starling knew early in the investigation that none of the crime-scene fingerprints matched Long. See id. ¶ 132. Even though Starling knew of the exculpatory SBI lab reports, he failed to produce them to Long and his counsel and failed to ensure Lea or other SBI employees did so. See id. ¶¶ 123, 359. Long alleges that because of these failures, Starling knew Long would face trial "without the benefit of exculpatory and impeachment evidence." Id. ¶¶ 128, 145.

In 2005, decades after his conviction, Long obtained a court order directing the SBI to locate, preserve, and produce to Long and his counsel all evidence from the investigation. See id. ¶¶ 192-96. Watters was SBI's legal counsel and responded to the court order. See id. ¶ 197. Watters represented that "he had personally undertaken coordination" to search for evidence but stated that the SBI does not keep evidence submitted to it for analysis. Id. ¶ 198. He also stated that "[n]one of the evidence listed [in the order] was found to be in the possession of the Bureau," except possibly the " 'rape kit' that was apparently done on [Bost]." Id. ¶¶ 198, 217. Nonetheless, a separate inquiry to the SBI for evidence, of which Watters was not a part, resulted in finding "three previously undisclosed SBI lab reports." Id. ¶ 213.

In May 2016, Long sought federal habeas relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. See id. ¶ 221. North Carolina opposed Long's request to conduct discovery concerning his habeas petition. See id. ¶ 222. In part, North Carolina argued that the SBI, pursuant to the 2005 court order, already had searched for exculpatory evidence and argued that Long "show[ed] no objective evidence warranting a rational belief that any further exculpatory evidence or material exists." Id. Long alleges that the North Carolina Attorney General took that position in consultation with Watters, who was still SBI's legal counsel. See id. ¶ 223.

Long alleges claims against Lea in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for (1) denial of procedural and substantive due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (count one); (2) denial of access to the courts in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (count two), (3) withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of Long's constitutional rights (count four), and (4) federal malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments (count seven). See id. ¶¶ 250-75, 287-99, 337-48. Long also alleges North Carolina state law claims against Lea for obstruction of justice (count sixteen) and due process violations under the North Carolina Constitution (count seventeen). See id. ¶¶ 411-23.

Long alleges claims against Starling in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to intervene concerning the withholding of exculpatory evidence (count nine) and for withholding exculpatory evidence in violation of Long's constitutional rights (count eleven). See id. ¶¶ 357-66, 384-93. Long also alleges North Carolina state law claims against Starling for obstruction of justice (count sixteen) and due process violations under the North Carolina Constitution (count seventeen). See id. ¶¶ 411-23.

Long alleges claims against Watters in his individual capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for due process violations and denial of access to the courts under the First and Fourteenth Amendments (count ten) and North Carolina state law claims for obstruction of justice (count sixteen) and due process violations under the North Carolina Constitution (count seventeen). See id. ¶¶ 367-83, 411-23. "

Outcome: Settled for $25 million.`

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: