Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Goudy v. Cummings

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

September 29, 2017

WALTER GOUDY, Plaintiff,
RODNEY J. CUMMINGS in his individual capacities as an Anderson police detective and as a Madison County prosecutor, STEVE NAPIER in his individual capacity as an Anderson police detective, CITY OF ANDERSON an Indiana municipality, THE STATE OF INDIANA for indemnification purposes only, Defendants.



         This cause is now before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 235] filed on September 16, 2016, by Defendants Rodney J. Cummings, in his individual capacity as a police officer, and Steve Napier, in his individual capacity as a police detective, (collectively, “the City Defendants”), [1] and the Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 269] filed on April 11, 2017, by Defendant Rodney J. Cummings, in his individual capacity as a prosecutor. Plaintiff Walter Goudy's cause of action stems from his conviction for murder and attempted murder following a 1995 jury trial. After a lengthy appeal process, the Seventh Circuit reversed his conviction in 2010, concluding that three police reports implicating another suspect in the crime were not produced to Mr. Goudy's defense attorney. Goudy v. Basinger, 604 F.3d 394 (7th Cir. 2010)

         Mr. Goudy subsequently initiated this action against Defendants, alleging a number of federal and state claims, many of which were based on the theory that Detectives Napier and Cummings knew of the supplemental police reports, but wrongfully withheld them from the deputy prosecutors assigned to the case, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and that following Cummings's election as Madison County prosecutor, he continued to withhold the police reports. However, it has since been established that the deputy prosecutors who prosecuted Mr. Goudy's criminal case did in fact have possession of those police reports before Mr. Goudy's trial, and thus, that those reports were not improperly withheld by Napier or Cummings. Mr. Goudy concedes this fact and no longer pursues a due process claim based on the withholding of the police reports. Mr. Goudy has also abandoned his § 1983 conspiracy claim as well as his state law claims. Summary judgment is therefore granted in Defendants' favor on those claims.

         Accordingly, the only remaining claim at issue is Mr. Goudy's due process claim premised upon his assertion that he was subjected to: (1) a Brady violation caused by the withholding of newly discovered exculpatory materials; and (2) an improper show-up procedure that denied him a fair trial. For the reasons detailed below, we GRANT Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment.

         Factual Background

         I. Background on Plaintiff's Trial and Conviction

         In the early morning hours of October 3, 1993, in Anderson, Indiana, two men fired multiple shots into a car occupied by Marvin McCloud, Damon Nunn, and Jill Barclay, killing Mr. McCloud and seriously injuring Mr. Nunn. The shooting occurred while Mr. McCloud was in the driver's seat and Mr. Nunn was in the passenger's seat. Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997). On December 21, 1995, Plaintiff Walter Goudy was convicted of the murder of Mr. McCloud and attempted murder of Mr. Nunn. Because the underlying facts surrounding Mr. Goudy's conviction were previously set forth in detail in the Seventh Circuit's 2010 habeas decision, we incorporate those findings here:

Goudy's conviction was based on the testimony of five eye witnesses. The five were Damon Nunn, Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay, LaTonya Young and Kaidi Harvell.
Nunn and Jill Barclay were passengers in McCloud's car. Nunn was in the front seat and was shot several times. Jill Barclay was in the backseat, but was not wounded. Both testified that McCloud pulled into a parking lot near an after-hours hangout and picked up Jill Barclay. They told the jury that as McCloud pulled out of the lot, Goudy and a shorter accomplice approached on either side of the car and fired several shots, killing McCloud; both testified that Goudy was the man on the passenger side of the car. Nunn said Goudy wore a brown or beige corduroy jacket, was around five feet eight to five feet ten inches tall, had an Afro hairstyle and wore a cap on his head. Jill Barclay said Goudy wore a dark sweatshirt, had a jeri-curl hairstyle that was partially covered by the hood from the sweatshirt. Both witnesses said they saw Goudy and three other men earlier in the evening at a nearby club called the Oasis.
Jackie Barclay, Jill's sister, and LaTonya Young testified that they witnessed the shooting from across the street. Jackie Barclay and Young had also been at the Oasis that night and both said they saw Goudy and three other men. After the Oasis closed, both went to the after-hours club. Jackie Barclay testified that she was talking with some friends outside the club when she saw Goudy and another man approach McCloud's vehicle. She said Goudy was around six feet tall and wore a dark jacket, dark pants or jeans, and had braids in his hair that were partially covered by his hood. The shooter on the driver's side was shorter, wore a “brown uniform, ” and had no facial hair. LaTonya Young told the jury that Goudy was the shooter on the driver's side, that he was around five feet eight inches tall with braids and a ponytail and wore no hat or hood. Young also testified in court that a recording of Goudy's car alarm was the same alarm she heard in the Oasis parking lot that night.
A roommate of Goudy's, Kaidi Harvell, was the state's primary witness and testified that he had been with Goudy in Anderson on the night of the shooting. He told the jury that he, Goudy, and Goudy's two brothers, Romeo Lee and Lamont Thomas drove up from Indianapolis together that night to go to some bars. Harvell said that Goudy and Lee coveted the tires and rims on McCloud's car and had been talking about “jacking” them. After the group left the Oasis, they headed toward the after-hours club with other locals, where Goudy and Lee planned to steal McCloud's car. According to Harvell, he and Thomas were instructed to drive around the block while Goudy and Lee would steal the car. Harvell told the jury that Goudy shot into the driver's side of McCloud's car, and that he wore a brown “prison coat, ” black cap and gloves. Lee shot into the passenger side.
In addition to the evidence produced at trial, the government possessed three police reports that outlined statements by Jill and Jackie Barclay, Young, Harvell, and another witness (who did not testify at trial) named Donzetta Clay. The first report describes a phone call to police from Jill Barclay in which she said she saw one of the gunmen at an Indianapolis mall. She stated that she thought he kept looking at her “over his shoulder” and that she later saw him outside “attempting to look at her license plate.” She later identified this man as Harvell and said she was positive he was one of the gunmen. The report additionally describes a photo lineup viewed by the Barclay sisters and Young. All three “positively and without hesitation” identified Harvell as the gunman on the driver's side of McCloud's car and said he wore brown clothing. The second police report details an in-person lineup viewed by Nunn, Jill and Jackie Barclay, and Donzetta Clay. Clay and the Barclay sisters identified Harvell; Nunn identified a non-suspect as the shooter. The third report contains a statement from Harvell indicating that he had been in contact with one of Goudy's alibi witnesses. He says he “talked with” her and that she “wants to change her story.”
The government did not disclose any of these statements to Goudy, even though they implicate Harvell and conflict with Harvell's version of events; contradict Young's statement at trial that Goudy was the driver's side shooter, and conflict with Nunn's description of the gunmen.

Goudy, 604 F.3d at 396-97.[2]

         As noted above, the only claim remaining in this litigation is an alleged due process violation based on Defendants' failure to disclose certain exculpatory evidence apart from the three police reports referenced in the Seventh Circuit's opinion and the City Defendants' use of an improper show-up procedure. We outline the additional facts relating to this claim in the following section:

         III. The City Defendants' Identification Procedures

         On February 5, 1994, Mr. Goudy was picked up by the police at the Oasis after an anonymous caller told the police that her boyfriend saw one of the shooters there. Exh. N (Rodney Cummings Deposition, Part 1) at 112. Upon arrival at the Anderson Police Department, Mr. Goudy was placed in a room with a one-way mirror. At this point, Mr. Goudy was not free to leave the Anderson police station of his own will. Exh. Q at 253. Thereafter, Defendant Cummings, in his role as Anderson Police Detective, contacted Jill Barclay and asked her to come to the police department to make an identification. Exh. C (Jill Barclay Trial Testimony) at 173-74; Exh. O (Jill Barclay Deposition) at 124-25. Ms. Barclay testified that Defendant Cummings and his partner Defendant Napier informed her before she was to make the identification that the person they wanted her to view was a suspect in the shooting. Exh. C at 177; Exh. O at 124-26. Ms. Barclay identified Mr. Goudy from the one-person show-up as one of the shooters.[3]

         Defendant Cummings testified in his deposition that he conducted the one-person show-up both because Mr. Goudy requested it and because he did not believe that Ms. Barclay would identify Mr. Goudy as one of the shooters and so it would not be an issue. Exh. N at 62-63, 66-67. But he also acknowledged in his testimony that a one-person show-up is an identification procedure that is less reliable than a normal lineup and can in some cases make it more likely that the witness will later pick out that same suspect in future lineup procedures. Id. at 60-61, 66-67.

         After Ms. Barclay identified Mr. Goudy from the one-person show-up as one of the shooters, Defendants Cummings and Napier showed her a lineup on that same day wherein she knew four of the five “fillers” and she again identified Mr. Goudy. Exh. C at 1, 152-1, 155. Ten days later, on February 15, 1994, Ms. Barclay was asked to view another lineup and she once again identified Mr. Goudy as one of the shooters. Mr. Goudy was the only person in common in these three identification procedures. Exh. P (Jill Barclay Suppression Hearing Testimony) at 178, 183-84, 187-88.

         At some point in between the show-up and lineup on February 5, 1994 and the second lineup on February 15, 1994, Jill Barclay spoke to her sister, Jackie Barclay, about the identification she had made. Jill told Jackie that the person she identified looked like “John Casey, ” a local man from their neighborhood. Exh. O at 140-141; Exh. P at 189-190. Jackie subsequently identified Mr. Goudy as one of the shooters.

         IV. Undisclosed Videotape

         Mr. Goudy was originally charged with Mr. McCloud's murder and Mr. Nunn's attempted murder in February 1994 by then-Madison County Prosecutor William Lawler. Those charges were dropped three months later on May 16, 1994. Exh. N at 93. Defendant Cummings and Defendant Napier disagreed with Mr. Lawler's decision to drop the charges against Mr. Goudy. Thereafter, in the fall of 1994, Defendant Cummings campaigned to replace Mr. Lawler as Madison County Prosecutor.[4] Exh. S (Steve Napier Deposition, Part 1) at 21-25. During this time period, on September 6, 1994, Defendant Cummings signed out of the Anderson Police Department Property Room a videotape recording of a September 1, 1994 lineup wherein Jill Barclay, Jackie Barclay, and Donzetta Clay identified Kaidi Harvell as one of the two shooters; this lineup was the subject of one of the three ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.