ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Thompson v. Clark – Malicious Prosecution claim under § 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution

The Truth News — Mon, 12 Aug 2024 09:52:30 +0000

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution

The Evil / Incompetent Prosecutor performing meritle$$ ca$e$ against his fiduciary duty

§ 42 U.S.C. 1983 for malicious prosecution

Thompson v. Clark
United States Supreme Court
April 4, 2022
JSH Attorneys: Justin Ackerman and Ashley Caballero-Daltrey

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Favorable Termination of Charges For 4th & 14th Amendment Malicious Prosecution Claim Need Not Show Affirmative Indication of Innocence

In a ruling today, the United States Supreme Court held that a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution does not require that the plaintiff show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. The Court resolved a circuit split on the issue with its holding.

In this case, Larry Thompson was charged and detained for two days and later released from jail after being charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. The charges against Thompson were dismissed before trial without explanation by the prosecution or trial court judge. Thompson then brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages against the police officers, including a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution. Under Second Circuit precedent, he was required to show some affirmative indication of his innocence. Because he could not, the district court dismissed his case and the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the same basis.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted review in order to resolve a circuit split on the requirements of “favorable termination” for a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. It explained that in order to determine the elements of this claim, it had to first look at the elements of the most analogous tort as of 1871 when § 1983 was enacted, as long as doing so was consistent with the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue. The Court reviewed the practice of American courts in 1871 to determine the elements of malicious prosecution. After a lengthy historical analysis, it concluded that courts in 1871 largely agreed that a “favorable termination” meant the prosecution ended without a conviction, but did not require anything more.

Applying this standard, the Court found that the plaintiff satisfied the requirement that his criminal prosecution – which the prosecution had moved to dismiss – ended without a conviction. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment of the Second Circuit and trial court’s determination that he could not bring a malicious prosecution claim. However, it left open a number of questions for remand, including: whether the plaintiff was ever seized as a result of the alleged malicious prosecution, whether he was charged without probable cause, and whether the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity.

Prior to this decision, federal courts in Arizona generally followed Arizona state law on malicious prosecution, which usually required a plaintiff to show some affirmative indication of innocence (not just a voluntary dismissal by a prosecutor). Going forward, federal courts will have to follow Thompson and will only require a plaintiff show that their prosecution ended without a conviction. It also left open a number of other viable defenses to a 1983 malicious prosecution claim, such as probable cause and qualified immunity.

Facts of the case

Camille Watson was staying with her sister and her sister’s husband, Larry Thompson, when she dialed 911 after seeing a diaper rash on the couple’s infant daughter and mistaking the rash for signs of abuse. In response, two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) arrived at Thompson’s apartment building to investigate. The EMTs saw nothing amiss, and, unaware of Camille’s 911 call, Thompson told the EMTs that no one in his home had called 911. He asked the EMTs to leave, and they did.

Four police officers followed up to investigate the alleged child abuse and insisted on seeing Thompson’s daughter. Thompson asked to speak to the officers’ sergeant, and after being denied that request, asked whether the officers had a warrant (which they did not). Nevertheless, they physically tried to enter Thompson’s home, and when Thompson attempted to block the doorway, the officers tackled and handcuffed him. He was arrested and taken to jail, where he spent two days. He was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration, and about three months later, the prosecution dropped the charges against him, stating that “People are dismissing the case in the interest of justice.”

Thompson filed a Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim against the police officers involved. A federal district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the defendants on Thompson’s malicious prosecution claim due to his failure to establish favorable termination of his criminal case, which is required under binding Second Circuit precedent. The appellate court affirmed.

To succeed on a claim of malicious prosecution under Section 1983, a plaintiff must show:

(1) the suit or proceeding was instituted without probable cause,
(2) the motive in instituting the suit was malicious—that is, for a purpose other than bringing the defendant to justice, and
(3) the prosecution terminated in the acquittal or discharge of the accused. The purposes of this third element—favorable termination of the underlying criminal case—are:
- (a) to avoid parallel civil and criminal litigation,
- (b) to prevent inconsistent civil and criminal judgments, and
- (c) to prevent civil suits from being improperly used as collateral attacks on criminal proceedings.

Most American courts have considered a favorable termination to mean simply a prosecution that ends without conviction and cannot be revived. Thus, if the prosecutor abandons the case or the court dismisses the case without stating a reason, these satisfy the third element of a malicious prosecution claim. Acquittal of the defendant is not required. Respondents’ claims to the contrary are not persuasive.

READ COURT OPINION

Justin Ackerman represents clients in federal and state appellate matters in cases involving excessive force, wrongful death, personal injury, bad faith, and premises liability. After graduating as the valedictorian of his class from Phoenix School of Law, Justin worked as a law clerk for the Hon. Michael J. Brown in Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Justin has successfully represented clients and argued before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

jackerman@jshfirm.com | 602.263.4430 | jshfirm.com/jackerman

Ashley Caballero-Daltrey is a member of the firm’s Appellate Department where she represents clients in federal and state appellate matters and dispositive motions. Before joining JSH, Ashley worked as a law clerk for Vice Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer of the Arizona Supreme Court. She has extensive experience researching and drafting memos across several different areas of law, as well as completing dozens of research projects and memos in torts, civil procedure, government claims, contracts, and land use.

adaltrey@jshfirm.com | 602.263.4489 | jshfirm.com/adaltrey

cited https://www.jshfirm.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-that-favorable-termination-for-fourth-amendment-malicious-prosecution-claim-need-not-show-affirmative-indication-of-innocence/

if you want to read the and download the PDF directly from the US SUPREME COURT https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf

or you can read it from us here https://goodshepherdmedia.net/thompson-v-clark-364-f-supp-3d-178/

Learn more about these sujects

Malicious Prosecution
Prosecutional Misconduct
Vindictive Prosecution
Retaliatory Prosecution
Abuse of Process

Selected Issues in Malicious Prosecution Cases

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct

Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University

VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

What is Abuse of Process?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution?

Malicious Prosecution Actions Arising Out Of Family Law Proceedings: Proceed Carefully

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution

SCOTUS Makes It Easier To Sue Police And Prosecutors For Malicious Prosecution

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

National District Attorneys Association – National Prosecution Standards – NDDA

What Happens If Charges Are Dropped Before Trial?

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Thomp$on v. Clark – Maliciou$ Pro$ecution

Reichle v. Howards (2012) – Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials –1st Amendment

People v. Superior Court (Greer) 5th & 8th Amendment – Bias / Malicious Persecutor

Hartman v. Moore (2006) –Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Epic SCOTUS Decisions

California Attorney Misconduct Law

The Truth News — Sat, 04 Nov 2023 07:43:04 +0000

California Attorney Misconduct Law

California Attorney Misconduct and Malpractice: Laws, Rules, Ethics, and Moral Turpitude

Many people aren’t aware that the California Supreme Court is responsible for the conduct – and misconduct – of all the lawyers in California.

“The California Supreme Court has the exclusive power to regulate attorney admission to practice law in California and has inherent powers to discipline and and disbar members of the California Bar. The Supreme Court has delegated to the State Bar the power to act on its behalf in admission, disciplinary, and other matters, subject to the Supreme Court’s review. However, the Supreme Court retains its power to control any disciplinary proceeding at any step and its judicial authority to disbar or suspend attorneys.”

California Business and Professions Code § 6106

§ 6106

California Business and Professions Code 6106 – The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or …

The commission of any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not, constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension.

If the act constitutes a felony or misdemeanor, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disbarment or suspension from practice therefor.

Terms Used In California Business and Professions Code 6106

Conviction: A judgement of guilt against a criminal defendant.
Precedent: A court decision in an earlier case with facts and law similar to a dispute currently before a court. Precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case, unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way.

Click here for the State Bar of California webpage about making a complaint against an attorney. Click here for the State Bar attorney ethics information webpage.

The State Bar also provides the public an exhaustive, 456-page directory of decisional law and other references addressing virtually every type of unethical attorney conduct. The directory is called the California Compendium on Professional Responsibility [pdf]. To download the Compendium, click here [pdf]. For the State Bar Compendium webpage, click here. SFCR often uses the compendium as a resource in reporting on allegations of attorney misconduct. Other references we rely on are described in this post from 2011. Click here.This page provides news you can use about California laws that apply to attorneys in the common family court situations we report on. If you have a news tip about an unethical family law attorney, please contact us using our Contact Family Court News page, or click here to send us an email. Before contacting us with a news tip about attorney misconduct, please review the information below.

Attorney Rules of Professional Conduct, State Ethics Laws

When attorneys appear in court, under California law they are required to tell the complete truth whether or not they are under oath, according to the State Bar. Under California law, telling only part of the truth is considered the same as telling a lie, and withholding or concealing relevant information during a court hearing is the same as telling a lie.

A“misleading silence” is not distinguishable from a false statement, according to the State Bar, and this principle dates back to at least 1929. All these forms of deception are considered fraud upon the court, or fraud on the court. “False statement of fact,” “explicit false statement” or “affirmative misrepresentation” are the legal, technical terms for what the general public refers to as a lie.

When attorneys file papers in court, under California law they are required to tell the complete truth whether or not the paperwork is filed under penalty of perjury. Under California law, telling only part of the truth in any court filing by an attorney is the same as telling a lie, and withholding, concealing, or omitting relevant information in court filings is the same as telling a lie. And is considered fraud on the court, according to the State Bar.

As “officers of the court,” lawyers must disclose in court filings and in argument before a judge the facts, law and other authorities harmful or adverse to their position, in addition to the facts, law and authority supporting their position. The failure to disclose adverse facts and authority is unlawful, unethical, and considered sanctionable misconduct, according to the State Bar.

As members of the State Bar and officers of the court, attorneys are required to be honest at all times, even when off-duty and not acting as a lawyer. Dishonesty, whether or not committed while acting as an attorney, is considered an act of moral turpitude and is prohibited by Business and Professions Code § 6106, according to the State Bar.

It is illegal for a lawyer to mislead or make misrepresentations to an opposing attorney or party, including a self-represented litigant. Making offensive references or descriptions about an opposing party or attorney also is unlawful, according to the State Bar. Business and Professions Code § 6128 criminalizes deceit by an attorney intended to deceive a judge or any party.

another case to learn from is:

Sturr v. State Bar , 52 Cal.2d 125

This is a proceeding to review the recommendation of the Board of Governors of The State Bar of California that petitioner be suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years. The Board of Governors found that petitioner (1) violated his oath and duties as an attorney and counselor at law, (2) committed acts involving moral turpitude and dishonesty within the meaning of section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code, fn. 1 and (3) violated rules [52 Cal.2d 127] 9 and 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of The State Bar. fn. 2

Questions: First. Did petitioner violate (1) his oath and duties as an attorney and counselor at law, (2) section 6106 of the Business and Professions Code, and (3) rules 9 and 12 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of The State Bar?

Yes. These rules are here applicable:

[1] 1. In a disciplinary proceeding against an attorney, findings of fact by local administrative committees and the Board of Bar Governors are not binding on the Supreme Court, which will weigh and pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of the board.

[2] 2. The burden is upon the petitioner seeking a review of the Board of Bar Governors’ recommendation to show that its findings are not supported by the evidence or that its recommendation is erroneous or unlawful. (Tonini v. State Bar, 46 Cal.2d 491, 492 [1], [2] [297 P.2d 1]; Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 165 [1], [2] [246 P.2d 1].)

[3] Applying the foregoing rules, the record in the instant proceeding discloses that petitioner was admitted to the practice of law in California on June 12, 1951, and is and at all times herein mentioned was a member of The State Bar.

Moral Turpitude: Deceit, Dishonesty, Half-Truths

California Business and Professions Code § 6128

Under California law, most forms of deceit and dishonesty by an attorney are considered acts of moral turpitude, according to the State Bar.

Under Business & Professions Code § 6106, the commission of any act of moral turpitude constitutes cause for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. Click here to view this code section.

Moral turpitude is defined by decisions of the California Supreme Court, decisions of the State Bar Court, and other authority.

There are more than 100 types of lawyer misconduct that are considered acts of moral turpitude, according to the State Bar. Click here for a State Bar list of attorney actions that constitute moral turpitude.

An instructive summary of what moral turpitude includes is provided by the State Bar Court decision, In the Matter of Maloney and Virsik:

“[The attorneys] committed acts of moral turpitude in wilful violation of section 6106 by knowingly making repeated misrepresentations to the Superior Court. It is well established that acts of moral turpitude include an attorney’s false or misleading statements to a court or tribunal…The actual intent to deceive is not necessary…Acts of moral turpitude include concealment as well as affirmative misrepresentations…

[N]o distinction can be drawn among concealment, half-truth, and false statement of fact…Also, it is not necessary that [the attorneys] actually succeeded in perpetrating a fraud on the court…These [court] pleadings were permeated with half-truths, omissions, and outright misstatements of fact and law. The Supreme Court has denounced such misleading conduct and has not hesitated to impose discipline in such cases.”

Click here to view this portion of the decision. Click here to view the complete Maloney and Virsik decision. Other moral turpitude references and authorities are provided at the bottom of this post.

Under state law, it is mandatory that a judge take action when an attorney commits misconduct. A judge’s duty to take corrective action is not discretionary. Canon 3D(2) of the Code of Judicial Ethics – the ethical rules for judges – requires all judges to take appropriate corrective action when a lawyer violates professional standards. Click here to view Canon 3D(2).Under its inherent power, the California Supreme Court has the authority to discipline attorneys for misconduct not covered by statutes, the Rules of Professional Conduct, or other authority. Click here.

Attorney Ethics Laws and Authorities in California

Whether they are under oath or not, attorneys are required by state law to tell the truth in court:

Mosesian v. State Bar (1972) 8 Cal.3d 60, 66. Click here.
In the Matter of Maloney and Virsik (2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 774. Click here.
In the Matter of Chestnut (2000) 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 166, 174. Click here.
Vapnek et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility (The Rutter Group) ¶ 8:278-279. Click here.
Witkin California Procedure 5th Edition, § 495. Click here.
Business & Professions Code § 6068(d). Click here.