McCarty v. Gilchrist
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14390
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- McCarty sued Gilchrist, Citi y, and Oklahoma City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for malicious prosecution and supervisory/municipal liability.
- State prosecutions of McCarty for first-degree murder occurred in 1986 and 1989, resulting in death sentences later reversed or remanded.
- OCCA findings in 1988 identified improper forensic testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and other trial errors; McCarty retried and resentenced multiple times.
- In 2001, Gilchrist’s misconduct was publicly exposed; she was fired following an FBI investigation.
- In 2005 the OCCA ruled Gilchrist’s actions warranted a new trial; on remand evidence destruction led to dismissal of charges in 2000-2007 sequence.
- McCarty filed § 1983 action in 2007; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants based on accrual and limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of probable cause is required for §1983 malicious prosecution claims. | McCarty argues Pierce allows no probable cause element. | Gilchrist et al. rely on Novitsky/Wilkins requiring lack of probable cause. | Probable cause required; trial evidence supported guilt when viewed with withheld/destroyed evidence. |
| Did destruction of exculpatory evidence by Gilchrist negate probable cause? | Youngblood should compel dismissal of charges. | Youngblood remedies vary; evidence still supported probable guilt. | Youngblood remedy does not extinguish probable cause given other evidence. |
| Whether municipal and supervisor liability claims are time-barred by accrual or Heck. | Claims accrue upon conviction reversal; Heck tolls not applicable after 2005. | Accrual tied to reversal; 2007 filing falls after two-year limit. | Claims barred by accrual/Heck; time-barred. |
| Whether Heck applies to bar the §1983 claims against Citi y and Oklahoma City before reversal. | No Heck bar after reversal date; timely filing. | Heck precludes until conviction reversal; accrual date disputed. | Heck bar applies; accrual after reversal; claims untimely. |
| What is the accrual date for §1983 claims in this case? | Accrual upon 2005 reversal decision. | Accrual upon mandate or other post-decision events. | Accrual date is June 14, 2005; claims time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Novitsky v. City of Aurora, 491 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2007) (elements of §1983 malicious prosecution; lack of probable cause)
- Wilkins v. DeReyes, 528 F.3d 790 (10th Cir. 2008) (requirement of lack of probable cause in §1983 malicious prosecution)
- Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004) (assessed probable cause; clarification of issues on remand)
- Youngblood (Arizona v. Youngblood), 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence; remedy concerns)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (bar to §1983 claims seeking damages for unconstitutional conviction)
- Mondragón v. Thompson, 519 F.3d 1078 (10th Cir. 2008) (timing of accrual for §1983 malicious prosecution)