Michigan Federal Judge Allows Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit to Proceed Against Former Detective and Polygraph Examiner

Overview

A Michigan federal judge has refused to grant summary judgment to two former law‑enforcement officials accused of fabricating and suppressing evidence that contributed to the wrongful convictions of George and Melvin DeJesus—brothers who spent 25 years in prison for a 1997 rape and murder they did not commit.

In a detailed opinion, U.S. District Judge Shalina D. Kumar found that the record contains sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether retired Oakland County Sheriff’s Detective William Harvey and former Michigan State Police polygraph examiner Chester Romatowski engaged in unconstitutional conduct that led to the brothers’ convictions. The ruling allows the brothers’ civil rights lawsuit to move forward on claims of fabrication of evidence, Brady violations, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy.

The DeJesus brothers spent 25 years in prison for the 1997 rape and murder of Margaret Midkiff before their convictions were vacated in 2022. Their lawsuit alleges that misconduct by Harvey and Romatowski played a central role in the wrongful convictions.

Background of the Case

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from Brandon Gohagen, a friend of the brothers, who claimed he raped Midkiff under pressure from the DeJesus brothers and that they killed her. As part of a plea deal, Gohagen was required to take a polygraph exam to verify his account. Although the exam results were actually inconclusive, prosecutors were told he had passed.

Years later, the Michigan Attorney General’s Conviction Integrity Unit uncovered new evidence, including:

• Additional alibi support for the brothers

• Serious questions about the polygraph analysis

• Evidence that Gohagen had committed another rape and murder 11 months before Midkiff’s death

Gohagen was convicted of that earlier crime in 2017, and the two cases bore “striking resemblance.”

Key Legal Issues

1. Fabrication of Polygraph Evidence

The court found that the brothers presented sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether Romatowski falsified the polygraph report. Expert analysis showed the reported conclusion was “unquestionably at odds with accepted numerical evaluation methods,” suggesting deliberate misrepresentation.

Although the polygraph was not shown to the jury during the criminal trial, the prosecutor testified that the case would not have moved forward without assurance that Gohagen was truthful. Thus, the alleged fabrication could have directly influenced the charging decision.

2. Suppression of Exculpatory Notes (Brady Claim)

The brothers allege that Harvey failed to disclose handwritten notes from 1995 witness interviews that supported their alibis and could have implicated Gohagen. These notes were later found in the sheriff’s office file.

Judge Kumar held that a reasonable jury could infer that Harvey received and reviewed the notes when his office took over the case, making the Brady claim viable.

3. Malicious Prosecution

The court allowed both federal and state malicious prosecution claims to proceed. There was no physical evidence tying the brothers to the crime; Gohagen’s testimony was the only evidence implicating them. If the polygraph report was fabricated and exculpatory notes were withheld, probable cause may not have existed.

4. Civil Conspiracy

The defense argued that plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss the civil conspiracy claim, but the court found no formal stipulation. The claim remains active.

5. Qualified Immunity

Judge Kumar denied qualified immunity, holding that by the 1990s it was clearly established that officials may not fabricate evidence or withhold exculpatory material. If the allegations are proven, the defendants’ conduct would violate well‑established constitutional rights.

Court’s Reasoning

Judge Kumar emphasized that the case presents genuine disputes of material fact that must be resolved by a jury. Key points include:

• The polygraph conclusion was so inconsistent with accepted methodology that it could indicate intentional falsification.

• The prosecution relied heavily on the polygraph report when deciding to charge the brothers.

• The withheld notes could have supported the brothers’ alibis and undermined the prosecution’s theory.

• Without Gohagen’s testimony, there was no evidence linking the brothers to the crime.

These issues, the court held, are central to determining whether the defendants violated the brothers’ constitutional rights.

Impact of the Decision

The ruling ensures that a jury will evaluate whether misconduct by Harvey and Romatowski contributed to the wrongful convictions. It also reinforces the importance of integrity in investigative practices, particularly in cases where the prosecution relies heavily on a single witness.

The decision highlights the role of conviction integrity units in uncovering past errors and ensuring accountability. It also underscores the legal system’s recognition that fabricated evidence and suppressed exculpatory material can fundamentally undermine the fairness of criminal proceedings.

What Happens Next

A trial date has not yet been set. Counsel for the DeJesus brothers expressed relief that the case will move forward, noting that the brothers have waited decades for accountability. Defense counsel did not immediately comment.

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.