In addition, requiring the plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose a §1983 claim when the government’s case was weaker and dismissed without explanation before trial, but allow a claim when the government’s evidence was substantial enough to proceed to trial. That would make little sense.
Thompson, at 11.
The Supreme Court, Thompson v. Clark, ruled today that a plaintiff can pursue a malicious prosecution claim without showing the prosecution ended “favorably.” All she needs to show is that ended without a conviction. This is an important ruling.
A person who was wrongly prosecuted may have a cause of action for malicious prosecution under federal law (42 USC §1983) if they can show that a police officer (i) caused her to be prosecuted, (ii) without probable cause, (iii) and did so with malice. The plaintiff also used to have to show that the criminal case ended “favorably.”
Thompson concerned this last criterion. The sole question there is whether the plaintiff need demonstrate anything other than the prosecution ended without a conviction. In New York federal courts, a plaintiff was required to show that the dismissal of his case iwas indicative of his innocence. This is no easy task and created logical and legal inconsistencies. As the Court in Thompson notes,
The bottom line here is that this element, known as the “favorable termination requirement,” created an additional obstacle that plaintiffs often could not satisfy for reasons that were beyond their control. Law enforcement defendants still have plenty of arrows in their quiver, but this ruling properly removes one line of defense that was fundamentally unfair and unjust.