A Cleveland man who spent 27 years in prison for a murder he did not commit cannot pursue charges against a Cuyahoga County assistant prosecutor who redacted key evidence from the man's investigative file in response to a public records request in 2016, the Sixth Circuit has ruled.

In a unanimous opinion on Thursday, a three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reversed a lower court's decision that the prosecutor, Barbara Rhodes Marburger, was not entitled to qualified immunity in a lawsuit claiming that she blocked Charles Jackson's access to the courts by redacting exculpatory evidence as she responded to a records request by the nonprofit Ohio Innocence Project as part of an effort to challenge Jackson's conviction.

While the Ohio Supreme Court issued a precedent-setting opinion limiting protections on the release of investigatory work product just weeks after Marburger produced the redacted document, the panel said on Thursday that before that ruling, there was an exception to the Ohio Public Records Act shielding the release of certain investigative records until all proceedings, including post-conviction, had been concluded.

As Marburger was operating under this precedent when she redacted a large amount of evidence in the documents she produced, the appeals court said she was entitled to qualified immunity.

According to court records, Marburger's redactions concealed contradictory early statements by witnesses who later changed their testimony at Jackson's trial, as well as evidence of what the opinion said was "unduly suggestive identification and interview procedures, fabrication of evidence, witness statements that identified other potential suspects or that denied that Charles Jackson was the killer, and attempts to coerce false testimony from witnesses."

In December 2016, the panel said, the state's Supreme Court "ruled that the investigatory work product exception to the Ohio Public Records Act did not extend beyond the conclusion of trial, and that, as a result, convicted individuals could use the law to obtain investigative files for the purpose of seeking post-conviction relief."

Marburger's redactions delayed Jackson's eventual exoneration by about nine months, with the City of Cleveland eventually responding to a separate Innocence Project records request with an unredacted file, the contents of which "included significant exculpatory evidence," the panel said on Thursday. The Ohio Innocence Project ultimately used the evidence to build a case that resulted in Jackson's exoneration in 2018.

To overcome the qualified immunity shielding Marburger, Jackson had to prove two things: that she violated his constitutional rights to access the courts, and that any "reasonable official" would have known that her actions would constitute such a violation.

When compared with precedential cases involving public officials engaging in "egregious conduct" such as coercing witnesses or concealing a murder, however, the Sixth Circuit said, Marburger's actions were not as cut and dried.

"We do not believe that every reasonable official would conclude that redacting exculpatory information included in a response to a public records request constitutes 'actions that effectively cover up evidence' on par with coercion of witnesses or concealment of a murder," the panel said.

Jackson, now 59, had been sentenced to 20 years to life in 1991 for the murder, and made several unsuccessful attempts between 1996 and 2013 to have his conviction overturned. At the time of his release from prison after 27 years, he had spent roughly half his life behind bars.

"While it is disappointing that the panel held that Cuyahoga County prosecutor Barbara Marburger is entitled to qualified immunity, the court's opinion makes exceedingly clear that withholding exculpatory evidence in response to public records requests, as Ms. Marburger did, is not only not protected by absolute immunity, but violates the rights of those who are prevented from using that evidence to challenge their convictions," Caroline Hyatt, counsel for Jackson, said in a statement provided to Law360 on Wednesday. 

Hyatt said Jackson would continue to pursue a claim against Cuyahoga County "for the policies, practices, and customs that caused Ms. Marburger's concealment of exculpatory evidence."

Representatives for Marburger did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Karen Nelson Moore, Jane Branstetter Stranch and Eric E. Murphy sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

Marburger is represented by Stephen W. Funk of Roetzel & Andress LPA.

Jackson is represented by Jacqueline Greene, Sarah Gelsomino and Caroline Hyatt of Friedman Gilbert & Gerhardstein.

The case is Jackson v. City of Cleveland et al., case number 22-3253, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

--Editing by Karin Roberts.

Update: This story was updated to include additional attorneys representing Jackson and a comment from Caroline Hyatt.