Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA

Introduction

In Larry Smith v. Wayne County, Michigan, No. 24-1688 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confronted two recurring questions in civil-rights litigation:

When does a prosecutor’s interview of a jailhouse informant fall within the protective cloak of absolute prosecutorial immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Does a settlement accepted under Michigan’s Wrongful Imprisonment Compensation Act (WICA) bar a later federal Monell claim against a county even if the written release never mentions the county?

Plaintiff Larry Smith, exonerated after 27 years in prison, alleged that former Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Robert J. Donaldson conspired with detectives to procure false testimony from informant Edward Allen. Smith also sued Wayne County, claiming a longstanding policy of using fabricated jailhouse testimony. The district court granted summary judgment for both defendants, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit, per Judge Bush, issued two principal holdings:

Absolute Immunity. Donaldson’s pre-trial interviews with Allen constituted advocacy—preparing an existing witness for trial—rather than investigation. Hence Donaldson is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability, even if he allegedly coached Allen to give perjured testimony.
Statutory Release. By accepting an $850,000 WICA settlement, Smith statutorily released “all claims against this state,” a term which statutorily includes counties. Under Leaman v. ODMRDD, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1987) (en banc), that release is enforceable without an express written waiver of federal claims. Accordingly, the Monell claim against Wayne County is barred.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) – foundational case articulating absolute immunity for prosecutorial advocacy.
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) – introduced the “functional approach,” distinguishing advocacy from investigative functions.
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) – reaffirmed absolute immunity for grand-jury testimony.
Spurlock v. Thompson, 330 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2003) and Beckett v. Ford, 384 F. App’x 435 (6th Cir. 2010) – Sixth Circuit cases extending immunity to pre-trial witness prep.
Roberts v. Lau, 90 F.4th 618 (3d Cir. 2024) and Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 2005) – out-of-circuit authorities recognizing limits on immunity when prosecutors perform police-like investigative tasks.
Leaman v. Ohio Dep’t of MR/DD, 825 F.2d 946 (6th Cir. 1987) – upholds enforceability of statutory release that operates by force of law.

2. Court’s Legal Reasoning

a. Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity

The panel reaffirmed the “functional approach”: immunity turns on what the prosecutor was doing, not when. However, timing remains a factor to illuminate function. The court drew a three-tier analytical structure:

Prosecutor merely prepares an already-identified witness for imminent trial → absolute immunity.
Prosecutor actively joins an investigation post-charge, searching for new evidence (police-like role) → only qualified immunity.
Grey area (early post-complaint interviews) → examine substance, timing, and who first identified the witness.

Applying this framework, Donaldson fell squarely in tier (i): Allen self-identified to police; detectives obtained his initial statement; Donaldson’s meetings occurred four days before trial and served only to “rehearse” testimony. Even intentional subornation of perjury during such preparation remains immunized under Spurlock.

b. Enforcement of WICA Release

Michigan Comp. Laws § 691.1755(8) provides that accepting a WICA award “releases all claims against this state,” defined to include “the state of Michigan and its political subdivisions” (§ 691.1752(e)). Smith argued the written settlement omitted any reference to Wayne County. The Sixth Circuit relied on Leaman to reject this argument:

Statutory releases operate by law; parties are presumed to know their legal consequences.
§ 1983 does not pre-empt state statutes that condition state compensation on broad releases.
A knowing and intelligent waiver is satisfied when a litigant voluntarily triggers the statute (here, by signing the WICA agreement), even absent express mention of every released entity.

3. Impact of the Decision

The ruling carries significant implications:

Clarification of the Advocate/Investigator Divide. The decision furnishes a detailed roadmap for litigants and lower courts within the Sixth Circuit, emphasizing that function controls but timing can corroborate — a nuanced middle ground between the Seventh Circuit’s bright-line rule and the Third/Ninth Circuits’ narrower immunity.
Heightened Hurdle for Wrongful Conviction Suits. Plaintiffs who accept WICA compensation must now either (a) forgo claims against counties or (b) expressly reserve such claims during settlement negotiations. Counsel will need to negotiate carve-outs or litigate first.
Strategic Considerations for Prosecutors. Prosecutors can engage in late-stage witness preparation with greater confidence but risk liability if they act as de facto investigators seeking new evidence.
Potential Circuit Split Deepening. By upholding broad immunity where other circuits have denied it (e.g., Roberts, Wearry), the opinion may invite future Supreme Court review to harmonize standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Absolute vs. Qualified Immunity
– Absolute immunity: total shield from civil liability, even for wrongful acts, when performing certain core functions (e.g., advocacy in court).
– Qualified immunity: protection only if the defendant did not violate “clearly established” rights.
Advocacy Function – Activities directly related to prosecuting a case in court: deciding charges, preparing witnesses, presenting evidence.
Investigative Function – Fact-gathering activities akin to police work: interviewing new witnesses, searching crime scenes, generating new evidence.
Monell Claim – A lawsuit against a municipality alleging an official policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.
WICA Release – Under Michigan law, acceptance of wrongful-imprisonment compensation automatically releases all claims against “this state,” including counties, unless expressly exempted.

Conclusion

Smith v. Wayne County crystallizes two pivotal principles in Sixth Circuit jurisprudence. First, prosecutors receive absolute immunity when they confine themselves to classic advocacy—here, last-minute witness preparation—even if allegations of fabricated testimony hover. Second, Michigan’s WICA settlement mechanism operates as a broad statutory release encompassing county defendants, enforceable in federal § 1983 litigation absent explicit reservation. For future wrongful-conviction plaintiffs, the decision underscores a critical fork in the road: accept state compensation and relinquish municipal claims, or preserve those claims by declining or narrowly structuring the settlement. Prosecutors, conversely, obtain a clearer (though not limitless) boundary marking when their trial preparation is insulated from civil liability.