Obtaining Compensation For Wrongful Conviction Under Federal And State Law

A wrongful conviction can destroy a person’s freedom, reputation, family life, career, and financial stability. After an exoneration, dismissal, or vacated conviction, the next question is often: Where can I sue, and what do I have to prove? I'll discuss here the options under both federal and state law. For state law claims I'll focus on New York, but each state has its own rules, deadlines, causes of actions and procedures.

In New York, a wrongfully convicted person may have two very different legal paths. One is a state-law claim against New York in the Court of Claims under the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act. The other is a federal civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against government officials whose misconduct -- and municipalities whose policies and practices --  violated the Constitution.

Both paths can be pursued in an appropriate case and lead to compensation, but they are built on different legal theories, different burdens, and different procedural risks.

Filing a Claim Under the New York Court of Claims Act § 8-b

New York Court of Claims Act § 8-b gives certain wrongfully convicted people a direct claim against the State of New York. This is not a traditional civil-rights lawsuit against a police officer, prosecutor, or municipality. It is a specialized statutory claim filed in the New York Court of Claims.

To succeed, the claimant must satisfy strict statutory requirements. Generally, the claimant must show that they were convicted of one or more crimes, sentenced to imprisonment, served at least part of that sentence, and later obtained a qualifying reversal, vacatur, pardon, acquittal, dismissal, or other disposition recognized by the statute. It's important to know, however, that not all reversals qualify. Rather, only those explicitly referenced in Section 8-b will suffice. For example, a reversal for wrongful conduct of the prosecutor or police will likely qualify but a reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel will not.

The major hurdle is the burden of proof. Under § 8-b, the claimant must prove, among other things, that he is actually innocent by clear and convincing evidence. That is a higher standard than the ordinary “preponderance of the evidence” standard used in many civil cases. It requires a strong showing that the claimant did not commit the acts charged, or that the acts did not constitute a crime, and that the claimant did not cause or bring about the conviction through their own conduct.

This makes a New York unjust conviction claim powerful but narrow. The statute was designed to compensate innocent people, not merely to remedy every flawed prosecution. A conviction reversed on a technical, procedural, or constitutional ground may not automatically satisfy § 8-b unless the statutory requirements are met.

Another important feature is early judicial screening. If the Court of Claims determines from the pleadings that the claimant is not likely to succeed at trial, the court may dismiss the case before discovery or a full evidentiary hearing. That makes the initial filing especially important. The claim must be detailed, verified, and supported by facts showing statutory eligibility and actual innocence. In fashioning the complaint, therefore, counsel must carefully track the statutory requirements. And the claim must be filed within two years of when the case was dismissed.

For many exonerees, § 8-b can be the cleanest route to compensation because the defendant is the State, the claim does not require proving individual officer liability, and qualified immunity does not apply. But the tradeoff is demanding: the claimant must meet New York’s statutory innocence standard with clear and convincing evidence.

Civil Rights Violations: Suing in Federal Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A federal wrongful conviction lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is different. Section 1983 allows a person to sue state or local officials who, acting under color of law, violated rights protected by the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Whereas an action under the New York Court of Claims Act has a two-year statute of limitations claims in New York under § 1983 can generally be brought within three years, though the "starting point" for applying the limitations period is not the same under all theories of recovery.

In the wrongful conviction context, § 1983 claims may involve misconduct such as fabricated evidence, coerced confessions, suppression of exculpatory evidence, unconstitutional identification procedures, malicious prosecution, or other conduct that deprived the accused of a fair trial or caused unlawful detention.

Unlike a New York § 8-b claim, a federal § 1983 case is not simply about proving innocence. In fact, although a § 1983 claim may not be brought until conviction is reversed, the plaintiff need not prove actual innocence. Rather, the plaintiff must connect the wrongful conviction or prosecution to a specific constitutional violation committed by a specific government actor or, in some cases, a municipal policy, custom, or failure to train.

That creates a major obstacle to recovering against an individual: qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability under § 1983 unless the plaintiff can show that the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the misconduct. In practice, this can become one of the most contested issues in a federal wrongful conviction case.

Even where misconduct appears serious, defendants may argue that the law was not clearly established, that their actions were objectively reasonable, or that they did not personally cause the constitutional violation. Courts may resolve qualified immunity early in the case, sometimes before full discovery.

That does not mean § 1983 claims are weak. In the right case, federal court may offer forms of accountability and compensation that a state unjust conviction claim cannot. A successful § 1983 plaintiff may be able to pursue damages for constitutional injuries, emotional distress, lost income, reputational harm, legal expenses, and other losses. In some cases, federal claims may also support attorney's fees.

But the case must be carefully framed. The plaintiff must identify the constitutional theory, the responsible actors, the causal link between misconduct and the conviction or detention, and the reason qualified immunity should not bar the claim.

Section 1983 actions also provide the possibility of a so-called Monell cause of action, which can be brought against a municipality that created and maintained policies, customs, and practices of deliberate indifference to violations by its employees of the constitutional rights of individuals who were investigated and criminally prosecuted. Monell actions can be particularly effective because they allow for recovery of attorneys fees. Additionally, a municipality cannot defend on the ground of qualified immunity even if an individual defendant may.

Which Path Offers the Best Chance for Full Compensation?

The answer is simple: the two paths are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, if there is a factual basis to bring both a state law claim under the New York Court of Claims Act and a federal claim under § 1983, both should be pursued.

A New York Court of Claims Act § 8-b claim may be stronger where the claimant can make a compelling showing of actual innocence and satisfy the statute’s technical requirements. It avoids qualified immunity and focuses on whether the claimant meets the statutory standard for unjust conviction and imprisonment.

A federal § 1983 claim may be stronger where the wrongful conviction resulted from identifiable constitutional misconduct—such as evidence fabrication, Brady violations, coercion, or malicious prosecution—and where the facts can overcome qualified immunity. This path may also be essential when the goal is to hold individual officials or municipalities accountable for misconduct that caused the conviction.

In some cases, both paths may be available. But they must be evaluated together. Deadlines, forum rules, pleading standards, immunity defenses, municipal-liability requirements, and the factual record from the criminal case can all affect strategy.

The burden in a New York § 8-b claim is demanding: clear and convincing proof of statutory innocence. The burden in a federal § 1983 claim may be different, but the practical hurdles can be just as difficult because qualified immunity may prevent recovery even when a constitutional wrong occurred.

However, an important consideration when both state and federal remedies are available concerns timing: which action should counsel attempt to settle -- or bring to trial -- first? Sometimes it will make sense to settle the Court of Claims Action first because federal law will generally not require that the amount of the state judgment be deducted from a federal court recovery at trial, but New York State will require that a federal judgment be deducted from a state court recovery at trial.  Then again, if the client was incarcerated for a lengthy period of time and an adequate federal recovery is available but the state case looks like it will drag out, then it may make sense to settle the federal case first to put money in the client's pocket so he can move on with his life while the Court of Claims case plays out.

In a recent case involving a lengthy period of wrongful incarceration, we settled our federal case with the City of New York for $9.1 million, just about a year after the client was exonerated. A little more than a year later, we settled the state claim for $4.7 million. We achieved the first settlement without even filing a complaint -- but we had drafted a very detailed and extensive complaint and provided it to the City so they would understand both what we would be alleging and also our willingness and ability to vigorously pursue the action.

Conclusion

Obviously, this is just a brief overview of how we achieve compensation on behalf of exonerees. There are innumerable additional legal and strategic considerations that must be factored into any such litigation, including how to conduct thorough discovery and effective depositions, and how to plead and position the case to avoid motions to dismiss and summary judgment. Mis-steps can be fatal to any such action, or can cripple the likelihood of achieving maximum compensation. A lot is at stake in these cases for clients who may have spent years in prison when they should have been free to live their lives. Such persons deserve to be fully compensated and counsel have a heavy responsibility to assure that such compensation is obtained.

Contact us if you were wrongly convicted and are seeking compensation.

Richard Levitt

Levitt & Kaizer

(212) 480-4000