MARVIN D. COTTON; ANTHONY LEGION v. DONALD HUGHES; WALTER BATES - Articles

All Content

MARVIN D. COTTON; ANTHONY LEGION v. DONALD HUGHES; WALTER BATES

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on May 22, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Kevin J. Campbell, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC, Livonia, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Beth A. Wittmann, GRANZOTTO & WITTMANN, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Kevin J. Campbell, Brandon L. Wykoff, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, PLC, Livonia, Michigan, for Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Wolfgang Mueller, WOLFGANG MUELLER LAW, Novi, Michigan, for Appellees.

Judge(s): STRANCH

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor

Plaintiffs Marvin Cotton and Anthony Legion spent nearly twenty years in prison for murder convictions and sentences that were vacated in 2020. In the years following their convictions, evidence came to light suggesting that key witness testimony was fabricated, other material evidence was withheld that would have undermined this testimony, and that Defendants, Detroit Police Department Investigator Donald Hughes and Sergeant Walter Bates, were involved in such misconduct. Cotton and Legion brought suit, contending that their constitutional and statutory rights were violated in three ways: first, by Bates’s and Hughes’s withholding of favorable evidence that would have undermined the testimony of the State’s two key witnesses at trial, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); second, by Hughes’s fabrication of evidence and testimony that led to the initiation of charges against Cotton and Legion and their continued detention, giving rise to federal and state malicious prosecution claims; and third, by Bates’s fabrication of key witness testimony, giving rise to a federal fabrication of evidence claim. Bates and Hughes moved for summary judgment on all claims, arguing primarily that they are entitled to qualified or state statutory immunity. The district court denied their motion in part and granted it in part, and they appealed. Because we do not have interlocutory jurisdiction over several aspects of this appeal, we DISMISS some claims. For those claims that we may review on the merits, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: