Court reinstates lawsuit against Boston over man's 34 years in prison on murder charge that was dismissed

A federal appeals court yesterday reinstated James Haley's family's lawsuit against the city over allegations Boston Police framed him for a 1971 murder they say he didn't commit.

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston dismissed the lawsuit's complaints against two specific Boston detectives, saying they had "qualified immunity" because they were acting in their official capacities. But the court said the city itself had no such immunity and that the family had a right to a trial on allegations that the detectives - who, like Haley, are now dead - withheld two key documents from Haley's lawyers. Those documents - summaries of interviews with the two main witnesses in the case that contradicted their testimony - led the Suffolk County District Attorney's office in 2007 to agree to vacate Haley's life sentence.

Haley was convicted in 1972 of murdering the boyfriend of his estranged wife's sister in her Roxbury apartment. Both his wife and her sister testified they saw him the day before outside the apartment; the summaries of their police interviews, however, had both saying they had not seen Haley for at least a month before the murder. Haley discovered the discrepancy in 2006 when he used the state public-records law to request Boston Police documents on his case.

In its ruling, the appeals court wrote:

Disclosure abuses are a recurring problem in criminal cases ... and the BPD's failure to disclose the sisters' statements is wholly unexplained. Given the volume of cases involving nondisclosure of exculpatory information and the instant failure to disclose statements that clearly would have undermined the prosecution's theory of the case, we think that the municipal liability claims pleaded by Haley step past the line of possibility into the realm of plausibility. ... Indeed, if the detectives intentionally suppressed the discoverable statements even when such activity was condemned by the courts (as Haley has alleged), it seems entirely plausible that their conduct was encouraged, or at least tolerated, by the BPD. Although couched in general terms, Haley's allegations contain sufficient factual content to survive a motion to dismiss and open a window for pretrial discovery.

The court slapped down a city attempt to dismiss the entire lawsuit because many of the records are now missing:

In a plea that defies reason, the defendants contend that "extraordinary circumstances" warrant dismissal of all of Haley's claims. Specifically, they complain that the loss of many relevant files, the death of several witnesses, and the passage of so many years will hamstring their ability to mount a full defense. The defendants cite no authority in support of the startling proposition that the loss of evidence over time, without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, warrants the automatic dismissal of a cognizable claim. What authority exists contradicts their position. ... At any rate, the loss of evidence will not necessarily prevent the development of the facts of this case. Some records (such as the files of the BPD) remain available; others may still be found or located; and Haley has identified specific witnesses, including the sisters and various employees of the district attorney's office, who may be in a position to shed light on the facts. Haley bears no responsibility for the loss of evidence, and it would be unfair to prevent him from attempting to prove his case because of the foibles of others.