Family heads to Supreme Court of the United States

Brownstone Law Files Petition for Certiorari in Vaughn v. Rea — Asking the
Supreme Court to Decide Whether Courts May Ignore an Eyewitness and
Forensic Evidence to Grant Qualified Immunity in a Fatal Police Shooting
Attorney Robert L. Sirianni, Jr. petitions the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf
of Kimberlee Vaughn, the estate administrator of Mohammad Isaifan, who
was shot fourteen times by Akron police officers in 2019 — raising questions
of national significance about the Fourth Amendment, the limits of
qualified immunity, and the right to jury trial in deadly-force cases.
WINTER PARK, FL — August 2026
Brownstone Law, a national appellate and post-conviction firm based in
Winter Park, Florida, has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the
United States Supreme Court in Vaughn v. Rea, challenging the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to affirm summary judgment for two
Akron, Ohio police officers who fired fourteen rounds at Mohammad
Isaifan, killing him, in December 2019. The petition is filed by Robert L.
Sirianni, Jr., Esquire, founder and lead attorney of Brownstone Law, as
counsel of record for Petitioner Kimberlee Vaughn.
Mohammad Isaifan, a 40-year-old father, had abandoned his car on I-76
outside Akron and was walking home along Brittain Road when Officers
Matthew Akers and James Rea — working an off-duty security detail without body cameras — stopped and shot him. No officer was dispatched
to intercept him. A surveillance camera across the street recorded the
encounter. An eyewitness observed the shooting from his window. The
autopsy documented the wound pattern. Despite this evidence, no jury
has ever heard the case.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on May 4, 2026, in a
published opinion authored by Judge Amul Thapar. Brownstone Law filed
a Petition for Rehearing En Banc on May 18, 2026, citing direct conflicts
with two other Sixth Circuit published decisions. The full court denied
rehearing on June 3, 2026, without a single judge requesting a vote.
Brownstone Law's Supreme Court practice is now asking the nation's
highest court to intervene.
"The Sixth Circuit announced a rule that will recur in
every case where the only witness best able to contradict
the officers' account is the person the officers killed.
That cannot be what Barnes v. Felix, Tolan, or Anderson
require. The Supreme Court should take this case."
— ROBERT L. SIRIANNI, JR., FOUNDER, BROWNSTONE LAW
Q U E ST I O N S P R E S E N T E D TO T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T
Whether the Sixth Circuit's rule — that eyewitness testimony to a
fatal police shooting cannot create a genuine dispute when the
witness did not also observe the moments preceding it — can be
reconciled with Barnes v. Felix's command that the Fourth
Amendment reasonableness inquiry "has no time limit."
Whether the Sixth Circuit's holding that the officers' account was
"undisputed," despite eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence
to the contrary, is consistent with this Court's holdings in Tolan v.
1. 
2. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) (per curiam), and Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986).
The petition argues that the Sixth Circuit committed two fundamental
legal errors. First, it applied precisely the "chronological blinders" that the
Supreme Court's unanimous 2025 decision in Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73,
prohibits. The Sixth Circuit framed the case as one arising from "five
seconds" of obstructed footage and held that only the "lead-up" to the first
shot "matters" — then used that framing to discard the testimony of the
only independent eyewitness to the shooting itself. Barnes expressly held
that a court may not confine the Fourth Amendment reasonableness
inquiry to a single window of the encounter. Notably, neither the district
court nor the Sixth Circuit acknowledged Barnes despite it having been
decided before both rulings.
Second, the court resolved the central disputed fact — whether
Mohammad Isaifan turned toward the officers and drew a weapon, or was
walking away when he was shot — in the officers' favor at summary
judgment. The petition demonstrates that the eyewitness, Michael
Williams, did not merely observe "aftermath." After hearing the first shot,
he immediately reached his window and watched three to four seconds of
ensuing fire. He testified that throughout that volley, Isaifan was walking
away at a fast pace, that his right shoulder never turned toward the
officers, and that Isaifan fell face-first. The Sixth Circuit characterized
Williams as having "lived across the street" and seen only "aftermath" —
characterizations the petition shows are directly contradicted by the trial
record. The officers' own forensic experts could state only that the wound
pattern was "consistent with" their account — while equally consistent
with a man shot in the back while stumbling forward. The petition argues
that under Tolan v. Cotton and Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, those factual
disputes belonged to a jury. The petition further identifies critical inconsistencies within the officers'
own testimony — including conflicting accounts of how Isaifan drew his
weapon, how he fell, and who provided medical care — that the Sixth
Circuit did not address when it deemed the officers' narrative
"uncontested."
"Kimberlee Vaughn has sought one thing for seven years:
the right to put her evidence in front of a jury. The
Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure that right
is real — not only for her and for her daughter, but for
every family in this country that faces this same wall."
— ROBERT L. SIRIANNI, JR., BROWNSTONE LAW
The petition highlights the systemic public policy consequences of the
Sixth Circuit's rule. In every case where an officer kills a subject and no
body camera records the critical moment, the officer is frequently the
only living witness to what happened. A rule that treats an officer's
account as conclusively established whenever an eyewitness did not see
the moment immediately preceding the first shot effectively eliminates
the jury's role in the category of § 1983 cases where factual resolution
matters most. The petition notes that Justice Sotomayor has identified this
precise asymmetry in the administration of qualified immunity. See Kisela
v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 121 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
The petition also raises the degree-of-force question under Plumhoff v.
Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (2014): whether the officers ceased firing once the
threat was neutralized. The autopsy documents shots to the back and
buttocks consistent with a man already falling and incapacitated. Officer
Rea testified that his first shot struck Isaifan in the back. The petition
argues that whether fourteen rounds — including shots fired as Isaifan was already falling — was constitutionally permissible is a factual question the
Sixth Circuit resolved in the officers' favor without adequate basis.
Kimberlee Vaughn is the executor of the estate of Mohammad J. Isaifan
and the mother of their disabled daughter, who was a minor when her
father was killed. Kimberlee has sought justice for Mohammad across the
full federal court system over the course of nearly seven years.
Brownstone Law was retained to handle the en banc petition and the
certiorari petition after prior counsel withdrew from the case. For more
background on the case and the legal issues, read Brownstone Law's full
analysis: When the Video Doesn't Lie But the Court Won't Look.
A B O U T B R OW N STO N E L AW
Brownstone Law (Brownstone, P.A.) is a national appellate and post-conviction
litigation firm based in Winter Park, Florida, founded by Robert L. Sirianni, Jr.,
Esquire. The firm handles federal and state appeals, post-conviction relief, and
habeas corpus matters in jurisdictions across the country, including before the
United States Supreme Court. Brownstone Law's Supreme Court practice focuses on
cases raising significant constitutional questions and issues of national importance.
Florida Bar No. 613460 | SBOT No. 24086378.
www.brownstonelaw.com | Supreme Court Practice | Case Blog Post
A B O U T T H I S CA S E
Vaughn v. Rea, 174 F.4th 530 (6th Cir. 2026). District Court: No. 1:21-cv-02197 (N.D.
Ohio, Judge David A. Ruiz). En Banc Denial: June 3, 2026. Cert petition filed by Robert
L. Sirianni, Jr. of Brownstone, P.A., as counsel of record for Petitioner Kimberlee
Vaughn. Petition deadline: September 1, 2026. Amicus briefs in support of certiorari
due 30 days after filing.
M E D I A C O N TAC T
Robert L. Sirianni, Jr., Esquire
Brownstone Law (Brownstone, P.A.) P.O. Box 2047  |  Winter Park, FL 32790
Tel: (407) 388-1900  |  Fax: (407) 622-1511
Email: robert@brownstonelaw.com
Web: www.brownstonelaw.com
Case Blog: brownstonelaw.com/blog/when-the-video-doesnt-liebut-the-
court-wont-look/
Supreme Court Practice: brownstonelaw.com/supreme-court-appeals