McDonough v. Smith

Background

Edward McDonough, a county board of elections commissioner who processed absentee ballots in Troy, New York, was investigated in 2009 for forged ballots. A special prosecutor, Youel Smith, allegedly leaked that McDonough was the target, pressured him to confess, falsified affidavits, coached witnesses, and arranged a questionable DNA analysis. McDonough was indicted, arrested, released with travel restrictions, tried twice (a January 2012 mistrial and a second trial), and acquitted on December 21, 2012. On December 18, 2015, he sued Smith and others under the federal civil-rights law known as § 1983, alleging fabrication of evidence and malicious prosecution; lower courts dismissed the fabrication claim as time-barred and the Second Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Court addressed when the statute of limitations begins for a fabricated-evidence claim tied to criminal prosecution. It held that the limitations period does not start while criminal proceedings are ongoing but instead begins only after those proceedings end in the accused’s favor (for example, by acquittal). The majority reasoned that this rule follows the common-law analogy to malicious prosecution and avoids parallel civil and criminal litigation, self-incrimination risks, and federal-state comity problems. The opinion distinguished earlier cases about false-arrest claims and relied on concerns about conflicting judgments and practical burdens if the clock ran earlier.

Real world impact

The decision means people acquitted after trials based on allegedly fabricated evidence may still file civil suits within the limitations period beginning at their favorable termination. It reduces the pressure on criminal defendants to sue while prosecuted and limits risks from civil discovery and self-incrimination. The case is not a final merits ruling on fabrication or immunity issues; the Court assumed, without deciding, the Second Circuit’s description of the constitutional claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas (joined by two Justices) dissented, arguing the Court should have dismissed the case as improvidently granted because the plaintiff did not clearly identify the specific constitutional right at issue and because immunity and claim-elements questions remain.