The Denver-based federal appeals court agreed last week that a man had not credibly alleged he was prosecuted for rape without probable cause because, in part, he apologized for raping the alleged victim on a recorded phone call.

Gary Weidner III sued Detective Kristin Ames and his former romantic partner, identified as “Jane Doe,” after Doe’s accusation of rape resulted in Weidner being prosecuted in Jefferson County. The prosecution eventually dismissed the charges against him.

Weidner argued Ames had access to information undermining the accusations and did not conduct a reasonable investigation. But a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found a key flaw with the claim that Ames lacked probable cause. Specifically, she applied for an arrest warrant by reciting Weidner’s own statements made on a recorded phone call with Doe.

“Detective Ames interviewed Ms. Doe twice, attempted to interview Mr. Weidner, and listened in on pretext calls between Mr. Weidner and Ms. Doe in which Mr. Weidner said he ‘never should have assaulted’ Ms. Doe and was ‘so sorry for raping’ her,” wrote Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr. in a March 5 order. “Armed with accounts of wrongdoing and multiple inculpatory admissions from Mr. Weidner, Detective Ames had no ‘obvious reasons for doubting the truthfulness of (Ms. Doe’s) allegations.'”

Attorneys for Doe and Weidner did not respond to a request for comment.

The case “highlights the increasing challenges and costs that municipalities face in defending their officers from baseless claims,” said Senior Assistant City Attorney Kylie Justus on behalf of Ames. “These types of cases result in significant taxpayer resources being spent to clear the names of officers who are committed to their work and the safety of our citizens.”

Weidner alleged that Doe “concocted” a plan to falsely accuse him of sexual assault during their consensual relationship. In July 2020,Doe allegedly met with Ames and reported that Weidner raped her over several months. Doe allegedly shared selective evidence to support her story and Ames declined to press for the complete text message and photograph history from Doe’s phone.

Twice, Doe recorded phone calls with Weidner, known as pretext calls, with Ames present. In her motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Ames attached the transcript of a call, in which Weidner said, among other things, “I am sorry for assaulting you,” and “I am so sorry for raping you.”

In March 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Nina Y. Wang dismissed Weidner’s lawsuit. She noted Weidner had not alleged an unreasonable level of investigation on Ames’ part, and the detective charged Weidner partly based on the probable cause he generated with his own statements.

“Here, of course, Detective Ames had far more than (Doe’s) word: she had Plaintiff’s confession,” Wang wrote.

On appeal to the 10th Circuit, the judges on the panel were equally skeptical that Ames should have downplayed Weidner’s own words to his accuser.

“We don’t get from the cold transcript of the calls the essence of the calls,” said attorney Curt M. Parkins during oral arguments in January. “Our position is that taken in its entirety when you listen — that’s citing to a 10-second clip on an hour-long call.

“I get that,” responded Judge Gregory A. Phillips. “You can argue he’s just trying to get rid of her, trying to quell the storm even if it’s not true or something. But if you’re the detective and you have that ‘I’m so sorry. I’m so sorry for raping you…,’ how can that not be arguable probable cause?”

In the panel’s opinion, Matheson wrote that Ames’ lack of a more detailed investigation into the allegations may have been negligent, but it did not amount to a constitutional violation for malicious prosecution based on what she did know.

“The statements in Detective Ames’s affidavit supplied probable cause to believe Mr. Weidner was guilty of committing a crime,” Matheson concluded. “The affidavit provided a victim-witness’s account of a sexual assault along with the alleged assailant’s apology for ‘raping’ the victim.”

The case is Weidner v. Doe et al.

Editor’s note: The original 10th Circuit decision used Jane Doe’s full name. Her attorneys subsequently asked the court to reissue its order using a pseudonym. The court agreed and reissued its ruling. As a result, this story has been updated to reflect that change.