James Newsome v. John McCabe and Raymond McNally

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Due Process Clause is the proper basis for challenging the use of manufactured evidence at trial
• holding that no federal constitutional claim—in particular none premised on substantive due process—exists for “malicious prosecution”
• holding that it was “clearly established 40 in 1979 and 1980 that police could not withhold from prosecutors exculpatory infor- mation about fingerprints and the conduct of a lineup”
• holding that federal claims of malicious prosecution depend upon the right to due process, not the Fourth Amendment, and thus rejecting “any constitutional tort of malicious prosecution when state courts are open”
• stating that the elements of the constitutional tort of malicious prosecution, if the constitutional tort exists at all, do not “depend on state law”
• holding the plaintiff had “a due process claim in the original sense of that phrase — he did not receive a fair trial if the prosecutors withheld material exculpatory details”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).