## Facts

- In October 1979, a Chicago store owner was killed during a robbery; police created a composite sketch of the shooter.
- In November 1979, James Newsome was arrested on unrelated charges; officers believed he resembled the composite.
- Newsome alleged that officers John McCabe and Raymond McNally steered two witnesses to identify him in a lineup and that those identifications were used to secure his conviction.
- Newsome further alleged the officers concealed from prosecutors that the witnesses had previously failed to identify him and that the lineup identifications were the product of coaching.
- Newsome also alleged the officers failed to disclose that fingerprints from the crime scene did not match his.
- Newsome was convicted in 1980 of murder and related offenses and was imprisoned for about 15 years.
- In 1994, a state court vacated the conviction; in 1995, prosecutors declined to retry him; the Illinois Governor later pardoned him after concluding he was innocent.
- Newsome filed a § 1983 action alleging police misconduct that caused wrongful prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment; claims premised on wrongful arrest/detention were time-barred.
- The district court denied summary judgment (qualified immunity) to McCabe and McNally on claims tied to manipulation of identifications and suppression of exculpatory fingerprint evidence, and the officers took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether § 1983 recognizes a freestanding federal “malicious prosecution” claim when state law provides a malicious-prosecution remedy.
2. Whether allegations that police manipulated identifications and suppressed exculpatory evidence state a constitutional claim under due process, independent of any malicious-prosecution label.
3. Whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the asserted constitutional limits were not clearly established in 1979–80.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held that § 1983 does not provide a freestanding “malicious prosecution” constitutional tort in Illinois where state law supplies a malicious-prosecution remedy.
- The court held that Newsome’s allegations nonetheless stated due process claims based on fabrication/manipulation of evidence and suppression of exculpatory information used to obtain a conviction.
- The court affirmed denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment because, if Newsome’s version were credited, the officers’ conduct violated clearly established due process principles by 1979–80.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff cannot convert a state-law malicious-prosecution claim into an independent federal constitutional tort under § 1983 where state law provides an adequate malicious-prosecution remedy.
- Due process is violated when police fabricate evidence, induce false identifications, or knowingly set in motion the use of false or tainted evidence to obtain a conviction.
- Police officers may be liable under § 1983 for suppressing material exculpatory information by withholding it from prosecutors when that suppression undermines the fairness of the criminal trial.
- Qualified immunity is unavailable where existing law clearly established, at the time of the conduct, that withholding exculpatory evidence or causing the use of evidence known to be false violates due process.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit rejected a standalone § 1983 malicious-prosecution theory in a state that provides a malicious-prosecution remedy, but allowed Newsome to proceed on due process claims that officers allegedly coached identifications and suppressed exculpatory fingerprint evidence, and it affirmed denial of qualified immunity because the alleged conduct contravened clearly established law.


Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2001)