Kyle Zoellner v. Eric Losey

Background

The case arose from the April 15, 2017 stabbing death of David Josiah Lawson in Arcata, California. Zoellner was arrested and charged with Lawson’s murder. After a preliminary hearing, a state court judge found that the district attorney had not proved probable cause to hold Zoellner for trial and dismissed the murder charge without prejudice.

The remaining claim for trial was Zoellner’s malicious prosecution claim against former Arcata Police Detective Eric Losey. Under the claim’s elements, Zoellner had to prove, among other things, that no reasonable officer in Losey’s circumstances would have believed there was probable cause to prosecute him. Probable cause means a fair probability, based on the total circumstances known to the officer, that the person committed a crime.

Before trial, the court rejected Zoellner’s argument that issue preclusion—an argument that an earlier decision should be binding in this case—prevented Losey from challenging probable cause. The court also ruled that it, rather than the jury, would decide the probable-cause question after the jury decided the other elements. The jury later found for Zoellner on those other elements and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.

Probable Cause Analysis

The court concluded that a reasonable officer with Losey’s knowledge could have believed there was a fair probability that Zoellner stabbed Lawson. The court relied on several circumstances:

- Wright gave a nearly contemporaneous account placing Zoellner and Lawson fighting and entangled on the ground. After separating them, Wright saw that Lawson had been stabbed in the chest. - Wright said he did not see Zoellner holding or using a knife, but the court found that this did not eliminate probable cause. - Other witnesses corroborated Wright’s account that he fought with Zoellner after seeing Lawson stabbed. - Zoellner was the only person witnesses identified as fighting with Lawson that night. - Zoellner’s clothing was heavily stained with blood, including blood on the back of his pants and hoodie. The court found the pattern was not consistent with only Zoellner’s own injuries. - A kitchen knife capable of causing Lawson’s wounds was found near the party location, although the knife was not connected to Zoellner. - The court found that Zoellner had a possible motive after Lawson allegedly struck him when Zoellner went to the house to ask about a stolen cell phone.

The court rejected Zoellner’s arguments that the forensic evidence excluded him, that the absence of fingerprints or a connection to the knife defeated probable cause, and that the lack of a knife in his possession showed there was no probable cause. The court also found that conflicting witness accounts and the absence of blood observed in the grassy area did not eliminate probable cause. A reasonable officer could credit Wright’s account over another witness’s later account.

State Court Finding and Disposition

The court took judicial notice of the state court’s finding that the district attorney had not established probable cause at the preliminary hearing. It explained, however, that the issue in this case was different: whether a reasonable officer in Losey’s circumstances would have believed there was a fair probability that Zoellner stabbed Lawson, based on the evidence admitted at the federal trial.

The court held that Zoellner had not proved the lack-of-probable-cause element by a preponderance of the evidence. Because that element was required for his malicious prosecution claim, the claim failed and judgment had to be entered in Losey’s favor. The order also set a further case-management conference and directed the parties to address the remaining case-management issues.