Stinson v. Gauger, No. 13-3343 (7th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseStinson spent 23 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was exonerated by DNA evidence and sued the lead detective and two forensic odontologists who investigated the murder and testified at trial. The odontologists were the key prosecution witnesses. They testified that bite marks on the victim’s body matched Stinson’s dentition. In his suit for damages, 42 U.S.C. 1983, Stinson alleged that the odontologists fabricated their opinions, the detective put them up to it, and the three suppressed evidence of the fabrication, in violation of his right to due process. The district court denied the defendants’ claim of absolute or qualified immunity from suit. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. While absolute immunity does not apply because Stinson sued the defendants primarily for their investigative misconduct, not their testimony at trial, the defendants remain protected by qualified immunity, which is lost only if Stinson presents evidence showing that they violated a clearly established constitutional right. He did not do so. Stinson’s evidence, accepted as true, shows at most that the odontologists were negligent; it does not support his claim that they fabricated their opinions. An error in forensic analysis—even a glaring error—is not actionable as a violation of due process.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 26, 2015.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 18, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.