No malicious prosecution claim in child death case

The Court of Appeals holds that the plaintiff cannot sue the police for malicious prosecution even though he alleges the police had coerced a confession that he had caused a child's death. Although plaintiff was either acquitted of the homicide charge or the police dropped the charge against him (this ruling is not clear on how the case ended), this case reminds us yet again how difficult it is to win these cases, or even to have them proceed to trial.

The case is Thomas v. Mason, a summary order issued on December 23. The district court held the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, and the Court of Appeals agrees. This immunity protects police officers from litigation if they acted in a good-faith and reasonable manner, as determined by clearly-established case law in similar cases. Set both below is the reason why the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, and why his case was dismissed on summary judgment:

(1) The examinations at Albany Medical Center indicated that M.T. had suffered a bilateral subdural hematoma to the brain, had brain swelling, had both new and old blood on the brain, and was completely brain dead; (2) Dr. Walter Edge described M.T.’s injuries as those typical of a high-impact injury possibly caused by shaking or severe acceleration and deceleration onto a hard object; (3) Thomas stated in his initial interview before the break (before the purported fabrications) that M.T.’s injury had probably occurred in his care and that M.T. had smacked his head on the crib about ten days before, which could possibly have caused the injury; and (4) M.T.’s older sibling said in an interview that she witnessed Thomas throwing M.T. into the crib and saw M.T. go limp, and that Thomas had repeatedly beaten the older sibling.

That disposes of the malicious prosecution claim. Plaintiff also sues the police for fabricating evidence. But this claim was dismissed as well. While plaintiff claims the police coerced his confession, 

it was objectively reasonable for Defendants to conclude, based on the undisputed evidence of what Defendants were told prior to the second interrogation, that their “working theory” was “accurate and not a fabrication.” Thomas’s spouse told Defendants that Thomas had “anger issues when dealing with the kids,” and both Thomas’s spouse and M.T.’s older sibling said that Thomas previously beat the older child. M.T.’s older sibling said that she saw Thomas throw M.T. onto a bed. Treating physicians told Defendants that M.T.’s bilateral subdural hematomas and apparent skull fracture were trauma injuries typically caused by high-speed impact or by slamming very hard into a hard object.

On this record, the Court of Appeals (Walker, Park and Nathan) holds, the police were not unreasonable in believing their version of events as to how M.T. died was true and not a fabrication.