CAMBRIDGE, Md. - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Cambridge man acquitted of murder after spending nearly two years in jail awaiting trial, arguing the Dorchester County State's Attorney had prosecutorial immunity.
As WBOC previously reported, Key'Marion Ennals sued the State of Maryland and three prosecutors in the Dorchester County State's Attorney's Office earlier this year, alleging malicious prosecution, negligence, and other claims stemming from the case against him in the 2021 killing of Ja'len Woolford.
Ennals was arrested in January 2022 after another man, Deaveon Johnson, implicated him during a police interview, according to court records. Johnson later pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and agreed to testify against Ennals as part of a plea agreement.
Ennals remained jailed for 631 days before the Dorchester County State’s Attorney’s Office was removed from the case after a judge found exculpatory evidence had been disclosed shortly before trial instead of months earlier. A special prosecutor later took over the case, and in August 2024, a Dorchester County jury acquitted Ennals on all charges after deliberating for about 18 minutes.
Following his acquittal, Ennals sued the State of Maryland and prosecutors Amanda Leonard, Philip Donoho, and Ella Disharoon. His complaint alleged prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence, engaged in improper communications with a judge, and violated his constitutional rights through malicious prosecution and negligence.
In a memorandum opinion issued June 30 and obtained by WBOC, U.S. District Judge Brendan Hurson dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety after granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The judge ruled that the prosecutors are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity, a legal doctrine that shields prosecutors from civil liability for actions closely tied to their role in prosecuting criminal cases.
Hurson wrote that the allegations, including claims involving the handling of exculpatory evidence and communications during the prosecution, concerned "advocative" prosecutorial functions that are protected under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent.
The opinion acknowledged that the doctrine can leave people who believe they were wrongfully prosecuted without a civil remedy against prosecutors but said lower courts are bound by decades of precedent recognizing that immunity.
Ennals’ lawyers, seemingly anticipating this response from the judge, raised the possibility of challenging the legality of prosecutorial immunity.
“Ennals eloquently argues that ‘there is a good faith basis for a change in the law,’” Hurson's opinion reads. “Ennals even suggests that the Court ‘certify the challenge to prosecutorial immunity presented here to the Supreme Court of Maryland.’”
“The Court appreciates Ennals’ thorough research and thoughtful review of this area of the law,” the judge goes on. “But the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity is well-settled, and it is not this Court’s role to overturn decades of precedent.”
Because the prosecutors were found to be immune from a suit, the judge also dismissed the claims against the State of Maryland, including Ennals' allegation that the state negligently trained and supervised its prosecutors.
Tuesday’s ruling dismisses all claims and directs the clerk to close the case. Ennals sought at least $75,000 in damages in the suit.
