Law360 (May 26, 2026, 7:05 PM EDT) -- A Sixth Circuit panel refused to shield two former Detroit police officers from key claims brought by two men who spent nearly 20 years in prison before their murder convictions were vacated, finding parts of the officers' appeal either lacked jurisdiction or failed on the merits.

In a published opinion Friday, the three-judge panel affirmed in part and dismissed in part an interlocutory appeal by former Detroit Police Department Investigator Donald Hughes and Sgt. Walter Bates in a civil rights suit filed by Marvin Cotton and Anthony Legion.

"Because we do not have interlocutory jurisdiction over several aspects of this appeal, we dismiss some claims," U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch wrote for the panel. "For those claims that we may review on the merits, we affirm."

Cotton and Legion were convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder and felony firearm possession in the killing of Jamond McIntyre. They were sentenced to life without parole.

Cotton's and Legion's convictions were vacated in 2020 after the Wayne County Prosecutor's Conviction Integrity Unit found withheld evidence rendered their trials "fundamentally unfair" and "undermined the integrity of the verdict," the opinion said. 

The men later sued Hughes and Bates, claiming the officers withheld exculpatory evidence, fabricated witness testimony and maliciously prosecuted them.

The officers' appeal focused on several pieces of evidence that surfaced years after the men's convictions, including a recorded 2010 conversation in which Hughes allegedly said key witness Kenneth Lockhart "had never seen" Cotton and "doesn't know him," a 2014 affidavit from jailhouse informant Ellis Frazier Jr. recanting his trial testimony and a 2014 affidavit from Kurt Nard saying Lockhart admitted he was paid and pressured to falsely identify Cotton.

The panel said it lacked jurisdiction to consider the officers' argument that the claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey , holding that a Heck challenge is not immediately appealable alongside a qualified immunity appeal. 

In the landmark 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision, justices ruled that a convicted person cannot sue for damages if winning the suit would imply their conviction was invalid, unless the conviction has already been invalidated or overturned.

The panel also declined to consider the officers' challenge to Brady claims. Such a claim is a legal argument that prosecutors violated a defendant's rights by withholding favorable evidence that could have helped prove innocence, challenge a witness's credibility or reduce a defendant's punishment. 

The opinion noted the officers had expressly conceded in the district court that Brady obligations for police officers were clearly established at the time. That concession, the panel said, amounted to waiver.

The court also said it could not review the officers' argument that the Nard and Frazier affidavits were inadmissible hearsay, because questions about whether evidence is admissible are outside the scope of this type of appeal. 

On Hughes' malicious prosecution challenge, the panel rejected his argument that earlier probable cause findings blocked the lawsuit and said those rulings no longer carried legal weight after the convictions were vacated. 

The panel also rejected Hughes' argument that Legion could not pursue the claim because he was serving time in another case and said an earlier state ruling on compensation did not decide the constitutional issues in the suit. 

The court allowed the fabrication of evidence claim against Bates to proceed, dismissing his reliance on probable cause arguments.

Cotton and Legion's claim was rooted in the 14th Amendment, which does not require them to prove a lack of probable cause to prosecute, the panel said, quoting circuit precedent.

The case will return to district court for further proceedings on the surviving claims. 

Counsel for Cotton and Legion did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. 

Counsel for the officers declined to comment Tuesday.

U.S. Circuit Judges Julia Smith Gibbons, Jane Branstetter Stranch and Stephanie Dawkins Davis sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit. 

Cotton and Legion are represented by Beth A. Whitmann of Granzotto & Whitmann PC and Wolfgang Mueller of Mueller Law Firm.

Hughes and Bates are represented by James R. Acho and Kevin Joseph Campbell of Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho PLC.

The case is Cotton et al. v. Hughes et al., case number 25-1201, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

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