Hill v. Aderhold

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was no protection by immunity for police officer who conspired to fabricate a known false confession and forward that confession to prosecutor
• holding that there was no 10 protection by immunity for police officer who conspired to fabricate a known 11 false confession and forward that confession to prosecutor
• holding that “[w]hen a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury’s decision and forwards that information to prosecutors,” there, a false confession, “he violates the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial”
• holding that it is clearly established that “[w]hen a police officer creates false information likely to influence a jury’s decision and forwards that information to prosecutors, he violates the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial”
• noting that allegedly fabricated admissions caused the plaintiffs to be charged with a more serious crime and delayed their opportunity to be freed on bail
• noting that a Transit Police Lieutenant started a prosecution by “filing the charges of second-degree assault”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).