New York Personal Injury Lawyer Blog 24/7
The Second Circuit considered whether a prosecutor who acted in an investigative role could face liability for fabricating evidence that later contributed to a loss of liberty. The case required the court to decide if a federal prosecutor could rely on qualified immunity when the complaint alleged that he created false evidence during the investigation and later used the same evidence before a grand jury. The appeal focused on the scope of the constitutional right at issue, the link between the alleged misconduct and the later loss of liberty, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the events.
Background Facts
Zaher Zahrey filed a civil action in 1998 against New York City police officers and Kings County prosecutors. He claimed that the defendants conspired to create false evidence that tied him to robberies and a murder. He also named Assistant United States Attorney Martin Coffey, alleging that Coffey took part in the investigation before acting as a prosecutor. According to the complaint, the investigation began in 1994 after the death of William Rivera, a former auxiliary officer. Rivera’s family had asked Zahrey, who worked for the NYPD, to inquire about the status of the case. Internal Affairs detectives later interviewed witnesses, including inmate Sidney Quick, who eventually made statements that tied Zahrey to robberies. Quick first claimed that Zahrey took part in multiple robberies but then changed his story to statements about guns and drugs. Detectives also approached Lisa Rivera, who testified before a federal grand jury after receiving help and support from investigators.
The complaint alleged that Coffey took part in efforts to pressure Quick and Rivera to provide false statements. A grand jury indicted Zahrey in 1996, and he was held without bail for eight months. In 1997, a jury acquitted Zahrey. He then pursued damages for misconduct that he claimed caused his loss of liberty.
Issue
Whether a prosecutor who acted in an investigative capacity violated a constitutional right by fabricating evidence that later contributed to a loss of liberty, and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. The court also examined whether the prosecutor could rely on qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Holding
The Second Circuit held that there was a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty because of fabricated evidence created by a government officer acting in an investigative role. The court also held that the right was clearly established in 1996. The court ruled that Zahrey’s complaint stated a claim and that the qualified immunity defense could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record before the court. The judgment dismissing the claim was reversed and the case was remanded.
Rationale
The court explained that the manufacture of false evidence alone did not violate a constitutional right because it did not, by itself, cause any loss of liberty. But the complaint in this case went further. It alleged that the fabricated evidence was created during the investigation and then used by the same prosecutor before the grand jury. That sequence supported a claim that the fabrication led to Zahrey’s indictment, arrest, and pretrial detention.
The court reviewed the framework for qualified immunity. It stated that courts had long recognized that police officers violated constitutional rights when they created false evidence that influenced decisions about arrest, charging, or trial. It also noted that prosecutors were aware that the use of false evidence at trial violated due process, even when absolute immunity barred civil suits for the trial act itself. That background informed the analysis of an investigative act by a prosecutor.
The court concluded that when a prosecutor acted as an investigator, he stood in the same position as other officers who performed investigative work. For that role, only qualified immunity applied. If the person who created false evidence later used it in a way that predictably caused a loss of liberty, the act of fabrication could be viewed as the cause of the loss.
The court observed that the same official carried out both the investigative act and the later presentation of evidence. That sequence made it foreseeable that the fabricated material would be used. The complaint stated that the fabricated evidence influenced the indictment and the detention that followed. Because the right not to be deprived of liberty because of fabricated evidence was clearly established before 1996, the qualified immunity defense could not be upheld on the motion to dismiss.
Conclusion
The Second Circuit reviewed the allegations in the complaint and accepted them as true for purposes of the appeal. It held that Zahrey had stated a claim for a constitutional violation based on the use of fabricated evidence that contributed to a loss of liberty. The ruling clarified that a prosecutor acting in an investigative role could face liability when he created false evidence and then used that evidence in a way that made a loss of liberty predictable. The court reversed the judgment that had dismissed the claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.
If your conviction was overturned based on findings that evidence was fabricated or obtained through improper investigative conduct, a New York wrongful convictions lawyer at Stephen Bilkis & Associates can explain which civil claims may be available and what steps may follow.