McDonough v. Smith
The Court ruled that a person accusing a prosecutor of fabricating evidence against him cannot sue until the criminal case against him has ended in his favor — not from the moment the fake evidence was first used.
The decision protects criminal defendants from having to choose between filing a premature lawsuit against the very person prosecuting them or losing their right to sue altogether while a long trial drags on.
“McDonough therefore had a complete and present cause of action for the loss of his liberty only once the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor.”
The Court's core holding on when the lawsuit clock starts for fabricated-evidence claims.
How it got here: A federal trial court and the Second Circuit ruled McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim was filed too late; the Supreme Court agreed to resolve a split among appeals courts on timing.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Edward McDonough, an election commissioner in Troy, New York, was accused of processing forged absentee ballots. Youel Smith, the special prosecutor, allegedly fabricated evidence — falsified affidavits, coached witnesses, and a suspect DNA analysis — to build a case against McDonough. After two trials, McDonough was acquitted in December 2012. He later sued Smith under a federal civil-rights law, § 1983, claiming the fabricated evidence violated his rights.
The question before the Court
If a man says a prosecutor made up evidence against him, when does the clock start for him to sue — when the fake evidence was first used, or only after he's acquitted?
The Court's answer
Only after the case ends in his favor. The Court ruled that a person accusing a prosecutor of fabricating evidence cannot sue under the federal civil-rights law until the criminal proceedings against him have concluded favorably — through acquittal or another favorable outcome — not from the moment the fabricated evidence was first used against him.
The Court reasoned that this kind of claim closely resembles the old common-law tort of malicious prosecution, which also required a favorable ending before a lawsuit could be filed, and that letting suits proceed mid-prosecution risked conflicting rulings between civil and criminal courts. Because McDonough sued less than three years after his acquittal, his claim was timely.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People facing lengthy prosecutions who believe fabricated evidence is being used against them no longer risk losing their chance to sue just because their trial outran the lawsuit deadline. Prosecutors and investigators accused of fabricating evidence can still be sued years after the fact, as long as the suit follows an acquittal or other favorable end to the case.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts, where McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim against Smith can proceed as timely. The Second Circuit may still need to address other issues on remand, including whether Smith is protected by prosecutorial immunity, a question the Court did not resolve. This is a final decision on the timing question, not a ruling on the ultimate merits of McDonough's claim.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide what constitutional right, if any, underlies a fabricated-evidence claim, whether Smith is protected by absolute immunity, or how the rule applies to claims not involving a loss of liberty. It assumed, without deciding, the Second Circuit's framing of the claim.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Thomas
Justice Thomas argued the Court should have dismissed the case as improvidently granted because McDonough never identified which specific constitutional right was violated, making it impossible to properly analyze the claim's elements or its timing. He would have required resolving what the underlying constitutional claim actually is before deciding when its limitations period begins to run.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court asked when a federal civil-rights claim like this one 'accrues,' or becomes complete enough to sue on — a question governed by looking to the closest common-law analogy rather than by guesswork.
- The Court found that McDonough's claim closely resembles the old common-law tort of malicious prosecution, which does not become a complete claim until the underlying criminal case ends in the accused person's favor.
- Drawing on its earlier decision in Heck v. Humphrey, the Court explained that letting a civil suit go forward while criminal proceedings are still active risks two courts reaching conflicting conclusions about the same conduct, undermining respect between state and federal courts.
- Because McDonough's claim directly attacked the validity of the prosecution against him, the Court held it could not become a complete and present cause of action until that prosecution concluded favorably to him.
- Applying that rule, the clock did not start until McDonough's acquittal, so his lawsuit filed under three years after acquittal was timely.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Heck v. Humphrey (512 U.S. 477)
The Court relied on Heck's favorable-termination rule and extended its logic to fabricated-evidence claims arising during an ongoing prosecution.
Distinguishes Wallace v. Kato (549 U.S. 384)
The Court said Wallace's false-arrest accrual rule does not apply because fabricated-evidence claims directly attack the prosecution itself.