Law360 (July 23, 2026, 5:46 PM EDT) -- A Sixth Circuit panel on Thursday questioned whether a Michigan man who spent more than two decades in prison before his assault convictions were vacated had done enough to revive his civil rights suit accusing Detroit police officers of fabricating and withholding evidence during the investigation that led to his arrest.

Attorney Beth A. Wittmann of Granzotto & Wittmann PC argued that U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood improperly granted summary judgment to retired Detroit police officers L.T. Hurley, Roslyn Beard, Willie Smith and Joseph Burton by overlooking evidence they allegedly created or embellished the child victim's description of the attacker to match Kevin Lackey.

"It was the race as well as the description with respect to his age," Wittmann told the three-judge panel.

Lackey sued after his 1993 convictions for sexually assaulting an 11-year-old Detroit girl were vacated in 2019 following a review by the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office Conviction Integrity Unit, which concluded that evidence derived from a tracking dog used in the case was flawed.

Lackey spent about 22 years in prison and another two years on probation before the charges were dismissed.

Judge Hood ruled in September 2024 that Lackey failed to establish constitutional violations supporting his fabrication-of-evidence, malicious prosecution and Brady claims.

During Thursday's hearing, Wittmann contended that the victim's later testimony undermined the officers' reports describing the attacker as a Black male between 18 and 19 years old.

She told the panel the victim testified that she had her eyes closed during the assault and only saw the bottom of the attacker's pants and shoes.

"When she was asked in the criminal proceedings, she said, 'I don't know how I came up with that,'" Wittmann said, referring to the age estimate.

U.S. Circuit Judge Andre B. Mathis questioned why the disputed description mattered when Lackey's own theory was that another Black man, the victim's father, committed the assault.

"What's the significance of this?" he said.

Wittmann responded that the officers allegedly tailored the description to fit Lackey after the tracking dog led police to him.

"It matched exactly to what basically Mr. Lackey was," she said. "None of that description actually came from the 11-year-old child."

The judges also pressed Wittmann about whether the alleged fabrication would have changed the outcome of the prosecution.

She pointed to testimony from the original prosecutor, Sharon Grier, who said she would have viewed such information differently had she known the description had allegedly been fabricated.

"She said that she was suspicious of any testimony ... that you had a Black male, 18 to 19 years old, when it's coming from an 11-year-old," Wittmann said. "She said, had she actually learned there was ... this fabrication ... she would not have issued a warrant."

Wittmann also argued that officers omitted critical facts from their reports that undermined probable cause, including evidence suggesting the victim's father was home around the time of the assault and wore clothing similar to the description she gave.

U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis asked what evidence showed the officers intentionally deceived prosecutors by leaving information out of their reports.

"So you're saying that's sufficient to infer intent?" she said after Wittmann argued the officers believed they had identified the right suspect.

"Yes," Wittmann said.

Representing the officers, attorney Christopher J. Raiti of Nathan & Kamionski LLP argued the record showed the description originated with the victim and her mother before Lackey was encountered.

"It wasn't some officers," Raiti said of who relayed the description. "It was Officers Burton and Smith."

Raiti said the officers broadcast the description over police radio before another officer's tracking dog located Lackey nearby, supporting probable cause for his arrest.

Raiti said the combination of the victim's description, the dog and Lackey's proximity to the crime scene arguably established at least probable cause.

Addressing the fabrication claim, Raiti said Lackey was attempting to reshape his claims on appeal.

"What is pled in the complaint is that Officer Hurley fabricated an identification by using the word 'defendant' in her investigator's report," he said, adding that no case holds that using the word "defendant" instead of "suspect" amounts to fabricating evidence.

Raiti also rejected the claim that officers fabricated reports because they completed them after returning to the precinct rather than at the scene.

"They took field notes in 1992," he said. "That was standard police procedure back in 1992."

U.S. Circuit Judge Kevin G. Ritz asked about Grier's testimony that she would not have pursued the case had she known officers lied.

Raiti acknowledged that such misconduct would be significant but argued the hypothetical did not overcome the remaining evidence supporting probable cause.

In rebuttal, Wittmann argued that the district court improperly focused only on the fabrication claim while failing to address evidence that officers omitted material facts from their reports.

"The prosecutor did indicate that she, in fact, relied upon the documentation and the reports from the officers to determine whether probable cause exists," she said.

U.S. Circuit Judges Stephanie Dawkins Davis, Andre B. Mathis and Kevin G. Ritz sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

Lackey is represented by Beth A. Wittmann and Mark Granzotto of Granzotto & Wittmann PC, and Wolf Mueller of Mueller Law Firm.

The officers are represented by Christopher J. Raiti of Nathan & Kamionski LLP.

The case is Lackey v. Hurley et al., case number 25-1410, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

--Editing by Adam LoBelia.

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