Mark & Galusha, LLC - Malicious Prosecution Attorneys in and Newark, New Jersey

I am often confronted with clients who have claims of being falsely arrested. Many times, however, the person comes to me after pleading guilty to a lower offense, or after accepting PTI. Bluntly put, by accepting anything in which there is a guilty plea, or entering into PTI effectively destroys any Malicious Prosecution case you may have.

To succeed on a malicious prosecution claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the criminal action was instituted by defendant against plaintiff; (2) the action was instituted due to malice; (3) the defendant did not have probable cause for the proceeding, and (4) the action was terminated in the plaintiff's favor. Williams v. Page, 160 N.J. Super. 354, 361 (1978). Acceptance of pre-trial intervention raises the question of whether the prosecution was terminated in the plaintiff's favor.

Although the New Jersey Supreme Court has not specifically determined whether pre-trial intervention bars recovery for malicious prosecution, the court has espoused a policy disfavoring malicious prosecution claims. Our Supreme Court has stated, "Malicious prosecution is not a favored cause of action because citizens should not be inhibited in instituting prosecution of those reasonably suspected of a crime." Lind v. Schmidt, 67 N.J. 255, 262 (1975). Further, notable N.J. superior court and district court cases have taken strong stances in stating that PTI results in an unfavorable termination for the plaintiff. Pre-trial intervention programs serve to divert certain individuals from the ordinary course of prosecution into programs which provide rehabilitative services. Lindes v. Sutter, 621 F.Supp. 1197, 1200 (D.N.J. 1985). Although a plaintiff's claim may be dismissed upon successful completion of PTI, the court does not make a determination as to guilt or innocence. Thomas v. NJ Inst. of Technology, 178 N.J. Super. 60, 62 (1981). As such, PTI is not equivalent to an acquittal, or any other favorable termination. Id.

In Lindes v. Sutter, the N.J. Federal District court also determined that a plaintiff's acceptance of pre-trial intervention is unfavorable in a claim for malicious prosecution. Lindes, 621 F.Supp. 1197 at 1200. In Lindes, the plaintiff, Lindes, was terminated after 18 years of employment with Foodarama. Id. at1998. Lindes was terminated and later indicted due to an investigation conducted by Foodarama and the local prosecutor's office. Id. In lieu of trial, Lindes opted for pre-trial intervention, and the court dismissed the charges against him after he successfully completed the program. Id. Subsequently, Lindes filed a claim against the prosecutor's office for malicious prosecution. Id. The court dismissed Lindes's suit, holding that pre-trial intervention did not constitute a favorable disposition of Lindes's claim, notwithstanding the fact that the court dismissed his charges. Id., 1200.

For more information on your rights or if you believe you have been maliciously prosecuted, call Mark & Galusha, LLC at 908-626-1001 or 973-440-2311 or click our Contact Us page, and tell us your story.