McDonough v. Smith

Browse related cases: U.S. Supreme Court (78) · False Reports and Affidavits (21) · Plaintiff Victories (25) · Landmark Decisions (90) · Due Process (33)

What Happened

Edward McDonough was the Democratic commissioner of the Rensselaer County, New York, board of elections. After a scandal over forged absentee ballots, Youel Smith was appointed special prosecutor to investigate. McDonough alleged that Smith fabricated evidence against him, including falsified affidavits and coerced testimony, and used that evidence to secure a grand jury indictment and to prosecute him through two trials. The first ended in a mistrial. The second ended in acquittal on December 21, 2012.

On December 18, 2015, just under three years after the acquittal, McDonough sued Smith under § 1983. He claimed that the use of fabricated evidence violated his right to due process. New York’s limitations period for § 1983 claims is three years.

The district court dismissed the fabricated-evidence claim as untimely. The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the claim accrued when McDonough learned the evidence was fabricated and was deprived of liberty as a result, which was years before the acquittal.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed. Justice Sotomayor wrote for the Court.

The Court looked to the common-law tort most closely analogous to the claim. For a claim that fabricated evidence was used to prosecute someone, that tort is malicious prosecution, which has always required favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceeding as an element. A claim with that element cannot accrue until the proceeding ends in the plaintiff’s favor.

The Court gave two further reasons. First, the rule of Heck v. Humphrey counsels against allowing a civil claim that would impugn a pending criminal prosecution to proceed while the prosecution is ongoing. Requiring McDonough to sue before acquittal would have forced him to attack the validity of his own prosecution in a civil court while defending it in a criminal court. Second, forcing criminal defendants to file civil suits mid-prosecution would risk parallel litigation, conflicting judgments, and pressure on defendants to forgo civil claims to avoid harming their criminal defense.

The Court distinguished Wallace v. Kato. A false-arrest claim accrues when legal process begins because the tort of false imprisonment ends there and does not depend on how the prosecution turns out. A fabricated-evidence claim, by contrast, is about the prosecution itself.

What It Means in Practice

McDonough gives you a later clock for one specific claim: that officers or prosecutors fabricated evidence and used it against you in a criminal case. That clock does not start until the case ends in your favor.

It does not change the clock for false arrest. If an officer arrested you without probable cause and also wrote a false report, you may have two claims with two different accrual dates. The false-arrest claim accrues at arraignment under Wallace. The fabricated-evidence claim accrues at favorable termination under McDonough.

How You Can Use It

• Plead fabrication as its own count. If a report, affidavit, or testimony was false and was used in the criminal case, plead a due-process fabricated-evidence claim separately from false arrest. It has its own accrual date and survives even when the false-arrest claim is time-barred.
• Calculate from the end of the criminal case. Acquittal, dismissal, or another termination that is not a conviction starts the clock.
• Pair it with the false-report pattern. For each fabricated statement, plead what was said, what contradicts it and how you know, what the corrected account shows, and why the difference mattered to the charging decision or the trial. See How to Plead a False Police Report or Warrant Affidavit.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• “This is really a false-arrest claim.” Defendants will argue that your fabrication claim is a relabeled false-arrest claim and therefore accrued at arraignment. The answer is to plead the use of the fabricated evidence in the prosecution itself, not just at the arrest.
• No favorable termination. If you were convicted and the conviction stands, the claim has not accrued, and Heck bars it. A plea bargain is generally not a favorable termination.
• Which right? The Court assumed without deciding that the claim arises under the Due Process Clause. Expect the defense to argue about the constitutional source. Plead the Fourteenth Amendment and, where the facts fit, the Fourth Amendment in the alternative.

How to counter: Keep the false-arrest facts and the fabrication facts in separate sections of the complaint, tie the fabricated evidence to specific steps in the prosecution, and state the termination date and how the case ended.