An exonerated man can continue pursuing civil rights claims against three Detroit police officers accused of withholding evidence about an alleged jailhouse informant program that he says contributed to his wrongful conviction in a 1994 triple homicide, a Michigan federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss filed by Detroit Police Department employees Dale Collins, Steven Myles and William Rice, finding Bernard Howard plausibly alleges the officers violated their duty under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1963 landmark decision in Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose information about jailhouse informant Joe Twilley to prosecutors.

Howard was convicted in 1995 of three counts of felony murder, three counts of armed robbery and one count of felony firearm stemming from a July 1994 triple homicide in Detroit. He received three life sentences without parole.

The Wayne County Conviction Integrity Unit investigated Howard's case in 2020, and his convictions were dismissed in December 2020 under a stipulated order between the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office and Howard's defense counsel.

Howard sued in 2021, alleging constitutional violations by Detroit Police Department homicide detectives and a sergeant. His claims included allegations that Collins, Rice and Myles failed to disclose that Twilley, who testified against Howard, was part of a DPD jailhouse informant program.

Twilley testified at Howard's preliminary examination and trial that Howard's co-defendants had confessed their involvement in the murders and implicated Howard, the opinion said.

After discovery, Judge Goldsmith in January 2024 granted summary judgment on certain fabrication claims but allowed Howard's Brady claim to proceed, finding a factual dispute over whether the officers "were aware of or participated in a practice of providing benefits or preferential treatment to inmates in exchange for false or fabricated testimony in pending criminal cases."

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case in July 2025 with permission to refile the remaining claims and agreed they would remain bound by the court's earlier rulings. Howard refiled in November 2025 and submitted a second amended complaint in February.

Howard alleges the officers intentionally failed to tell the trial prosecutor that Twilley had been used as a "listening post" for homicide detectives in more than 20 previous cases and that the DPD's homicide section had used jailhouse informants for years to help secure convictions.

The officers argued Howard's latest complaint improperly expanded the narrow Brady claim that survived the earlier summary judgment ruling.

Judge Goldsmith disagreed, saying the allegations about Twilley's extensive history as an informant support rather than expand Howard's surviving claim.

"The fact that Twilley had testified in over twenty cases is probative of the existence and scope of the alleged informant program," Judge Goldsmith wrote. "It demonstrates that Twilley was not a one-time cooperator but a repeat participant in a structured practice."

The officers also argued Twilley had already been released from custody by the time of Howard's trial and therefore Howard had not sufficiently alleged Twilley received a benefit in exchange for his testimony.

But Judge Goldsmith said that argument "misconstrues the Brady claim."

"The claim is not that Twilley received a benefit for testifying in Howard's specific case," Judge Goldsmith said. "Rather, it is that defendants failed to disclose the existence of a broader program in which informants like Twilley received benefits for cooperating."

Whether Twilley was in custody when he testified affects the weight of the evidence, not the plausibility of Howard's claim at the pleading stage, Judge Goldsmith said.

The officers' central argument was that the information was never suppressed because Howard's defense attorneys knew or should have known about Twilley's history. They pointed to testimony and cross-examination showing that defense attorneys questioned Twilley about being a "snitch," cooperating in earlier cases and receiving a sentence reduction.

Judge Goldsmith said those facts don't establish as a matter of law that Howard's lawyers knew about the scope of the alleged DPD program.

Judge Goldsmith also pointed to the Sixth Circuit's 2025 decision in Salter v. City of Detroit, and said police have a duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the prosecutor handling a case.

Howard's allegation that the officers knew about the program but failed to tell the trial prosecutor about its extent presents "a plausible suppression theory at the pleading stage," Judge Goldsmith said.

The court similarly rejected the officers' contention that information about the informant program was not sufficiently exculpatory because the use of jailhouse informants itself is constitutionally permissible.

That argument "conflates the constitutional permissibility of using informants with the Brady duty to disclose material impeachment evidence," Judge Goldsmith said.

Twilley was a key prosecution witness whose testimony directly implicated Howard, the opinion said, and information suggesting that he participated in a program offering benefits for cooperation could have been used to challenge his credibility.

Judge Goldsmith also rejected the officers' argument that Howard was effectively attempting to impose municipal liability on them individually based on a systemic DPD policy.

Howard's theory is instead that each officer knew about the alleged program, knew of Twilley's participation, and personally failed to disclose that information, Judge Goldsmith said.

"Whether this theory ultimately succeeds will depend on proof that each defendant had the requisite knowledge and failed to act," Judge Goldsmith wrote.

The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Howard is represented by Wolfgang Mueller of the Mueller Law Firm and Donald H. Dawson Jr. 

The defendants are represented by Andrew P. Duff, Avi Kamionski, Christopher J. Raiti, Jessica L. Griff and Shneur Z. Nathan of Nathan & Kamionski LLP and James Acho, Shane R. Nolan and Wayne Tomala of Cummings McClorey Davis & Acho PLC.

The case is Howard v. Collins et al., case number 2:25-cv-13517, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

--Editing by Janice Carter Brown.