PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings from Chester County and one of its police detectives, paving the way for a malicious prosecution suit against them from a man wrongfully convicted of a home invasion and murder to continue.
On Feb. 28, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge John M. Younge denied such a motion from the County and Det. Harold Dutter, in litigation brought by plaintiff Marquis Lee Rayner.
“Plaintiff Marquis Rayner was convicted of second-degree murder, robbery, burglary and criminal conspiracy on Nov. 20, 2014 following a trial by jury, and ultimately served nine years, 10 months and 24 days of his lifetime sentence before being released on Feb. 1, 2023. During that time, plaintiff repeatedly challenged his conviction and ultimately sought habeas relief, arguing that there was insufficient evidence with which to convict him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, finding that there was insufficient incriminating evidence to support a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt,” Younge said.
“The underlying conviction stemmed from the June 29, 2012 gunpoint robbery and murder of Dominque Williams, for which three people, including plaintiff and his brother, were ultimately charged. Witnesses had seen the alleged perpetrators wearing T-Shirts tied around their faces, and one of these T-Shirts, discovered near the crime scene, contained DNA belonging to the plaintiff. That same T-Shirt also contained the DNA of two other people who were not identifiable, based on those samples. Defendant Dutter, a detective for defendant Chester County, presented the Honorable Lori Novak Donatelli, Chester County Magisterial District Judge, with an affidavit of probable cause stating that plaintiff’s DNA had been found on the T-Shirt, without reference to the other two samples. Additionally, fingerprints recovered from an item stolen from the victim matched the plaintiff’s brother, who he lived with at the time. The arrest warrant, based on this affidavit of probable cause, was issued on March 12, 2013. Plaintiff argues that failing to mention that there were two other DNA samples found was intentionally deceptive, caused him to be arrested and prosecuted without probable cause and that this resulted from defendant Chester County’s ‘pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct in their investigations.”
Rayner then filed his complaint against defendants on Dec. 29, 2023, alleging multiple constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, including (1) Malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, (2) Deprivation of liberty without due process of law and denial of a fair trial by fabricating evidence, withholding material exculpatory and impeachment evidence, and deliberate deception, and (3) Municipal liability, as well as conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights and accompanying violations of state law.
The defendants filed their motion for judgment on the pleadings on Feb. 12, arguing that Rayner had failed to plead sufficient facts supportive of his claims.
Younge found that motion from the defense was “premature” at this juncture, since Rayner “pled sufficient facts to support his claim that defendant Dutter intentionally omitted facts that could have the effect of undercutting his assertion of probable cause.”
“That there were two other DNA samples taken from the same T-Shirt believed to have been used in the commission of the crime, albeit unidentifiable, was potentially material to a determination of whether the discovery of plaintiff’s DNA was sufficient to create probable cause. As the Third Circuit pointed out in reversing plaintiff’s conviction, the T-Shirt was a movable object that multiple people could have been in contact with at various times; indeed, as shown by the three DNA samples collected from that T-Shirt, multiple people had been in contact with it, though Judge Donatelli was not informed of this,” Younge said.
“The plausible materiality of this omission is sufficient, at this stage, for plaintiff to proceed to discovery. The Court likewise finds that judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s additional, related claims is premature. For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-05187
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com