PITTSBURGH - Attorneys for Jordan Brown have revealed the basis for their challenge of a federal court's decision to uphold a jury verdict that cleared Pennsylvania State Police investigators of wrongdoing in a long-running civil rights lawsuit. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, seeks to overturn a September 25, 2025, ruling by Judge W. Scott Hardy that denied Brown a new trial or a judgment in his favor.

The legal battle stems from Brown’s February 2009 arrest at age 11 for the murder of his father’s pregnant fiancée, 26-year-old Kenzie Houk, at their home in Wampum, Pennsylvania. After spending nearly a decade in juvenile detention, Brown was cleared of the charges in 2018 when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He subsequently sued the investigators, alleging they violated his constitutional rights.

In formal appeal documents, Brown’s legal team identifies several reasons why the previous trial result in Pittsburgh should be discarded. The primary argument focuses on how investigators handled a midnight interview on February 21, 2009, with a 7-year-old family member and witness. Brown’s lawyer argues that the troopers intentionally changed her statement in the arrest warrant to make it appear reliable. They claim the officers used punctuation to remove parts where the child admitted her account was inconsistent and expressed confusion, which they believe misled the judge who approved the arrest.

A major point of the appeal is that the trial judge allowed a jury to decide questions that should have been handled by the judge. Brown’s attorneys argue that because the facts regarding how officers edited the witness statement were not in dispute, the judge should have ruled directly on whether the police had a legal reason to make the arrest. They believe these fundamental constitutional questions were too important to be left to a jury to interpret.

The appeal also questions the legal validity of using a child’s statements not supported by other evidence to justify an arrest. Brown’s team argues that the inconsistent statements provided by a 7-year-old are not enough to establish a legal reason for an arrest. They point out that the little girl had given two prior statements that provided an alibi for Brown before she gave the final statement that led to his arrest.

The appeal claims the trial court made a mistake by allowing the witness to testify as an adult about her memories of the event. The lawyers argued this testimony included information that was unknown to the police at the time of the arrest and differed significantly from her original childhood statements. Finally, the appeal asserts that the jury’s decision to clear the officers was so contrary to the facts that it resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Third Circuit will review the arguments to determine if Brown is entitled to a new trial or a direct ruling in his favor. While former Commissioner Frank Pawlowski was originally a defendant, he was removed from the case before trial. This appeal specifically concerns the liability of investigators Janice Wilson, Jeffrey Martin, Troy Steinheiser, and the estate of Robert McGraw.