Law360 (October 13, 2026, 5:38 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said Tuesday that it would not review an Eleventh Circuit decision stripping qualified immunity from a fingerprint analyst who is facing allegations that she fabricated evidence that sent a wrongly convicted man to death row.

In an order list, the justices cleared the way for a civil lawsuit against the analyst, Donna Birks, who argued in her certiorari petition that she did not violate Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin's constitutional rights because he admitted at trial to handling a knife that she tested.

As is their custom, the justices did not provide a reason for denying certiorari in Birks' case.

The Eleventh Circuit in November 2025 upheld a denial of qualified immunity for Birks for her conduct in Aguirre-Jarquin's 2006 double murder case. The panel found that immunity was correctly denied on two federal due process claims, and it allowed a malicious prosecution claim to be thrown out against Birks and lead crime scene investigator Jacqueline Grossi, according to the court's opinion.

In March 2026, Birks filed a certiorari petition asking the high court to review whether she should be given immunity from the two federal due process claims. Birks told the justices that federal courts should be required to determine whether fabricated evidence actually deprived a defendant of their rights before qualified immunity can be waived.

"Aguirre cannot show that Birks' palm print match caused his conviction and subsequent imprisonment because the only inference to be drawn from that testimony is that Aguirre held the knife used to kill Cheryl Williams and Carol Bareis and Aguirre testified that he handled the knife," the petition said.

Birks is accused of failing to properly verify her work when she concluded that Aguirre-Jarquin's palm print was on a knife that was used to kill his neighbors, Cheryl Williams and Carol Bareis, in Altamonte Springs, Florida, in 2004. Aguirre-Jarquin was convicted in 2006 for the neighbors' double murder and was sentenced to death.

A 2007 investigation of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office Latent Print Unit created doubt about whether the latent prints found on the murder weapon belonged to Aguirre-Jarquin. Aguirre-Jarquin's conviction was later vacated, and the state dropped all charges after his neighbor's daughter confessed to the killing in 2018, according to the Eleventh Circuit opinion.

Aguirre-Jarquin sued Birks as well as Grossi, lead homicide investigator Robert Hemmert and the Seminole County sheriff, blaming them for his wrongful conviction. Birks specifically asked colleague William McQuay, who "would fall asleep mid-conversation and err when performing verifications," to confirm her work, the appellate court said.

The Eleventh Circuit last year ruled that Birks and Hemmert are not entitled to qualified immunity for their role in Aguirre-Jarquin's wrongful conviction. The full court also refused Birks' request to review the decision.

Birks then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that she was mistaken in believing Aguirre-Jarquin's handprint was a match to the one found on the murder weapon. Her petition argued that because Aguirre-Jarquin admitted at trial that he had handled the knife, there was not a deprivation of his constitutional rights.

The petition asked the high court to rule that fabrication of evidence requires a "knowing mind" to be considered a violation of the 14th Amendment. Birks also claimed she is entitled to immunity from the lawsuit because there was a lack of clearly established law.

The decision by the justices not to take the case up means the Eleventh Circuit ruling will stay in place, and the case will move ahead to trial.

An attorney representing Birks and an attorney representing Aguirre-Jarquin did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Birks is represented by Thomas W. Poulton of DeBevoise & Poulton PA.

Aguirre-Jarquin is represented by Travis R. Hollifield of Hollifield Legal Centre.

The case is Donna Birks v. Clemente Javier Aguirre-Jarquin, case number 25-13541, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

--Editing by Haylee Pearl.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.