.

Defense Digest

A Shift in Wrongful Incarceration and Malicious Prosecution Lawsuits: Multi-Million Dollar Settlements Turned into Case Dismissals

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025

December 1, 2025

by Jahlee J. Hatchett

Key Points: 

  • The pleading standard for wrongful incarceration and malicious prosecution cases may gradually be shifting to require more specific allegations in order to establish such claims. 
  • The Constitution does not provide individuals with a right to have an “adequate” investigation conducted. 

In recent years, there has been a drastic shift in the way that local prosecutor’s offices handle wrongful incarceration cases, specifically as it relates to overturned homicide convictions. For instance, since 2020, the City of Philadelphia has paid in excess of $20 million in fees for settlement of lawsuits stemming from wrongful incarcerations. Separately, juries have awarded plaintiffs more than $10 million in wrongful conviction cases. 

These wrongful incarceration lawsuits have been fueled, in part, by efforts by prosecutors to hold police officers accountable for engaging in unethical practices while investigating crimes. In 2021, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office charged three long-retired homicide detectives with perjury and related charges in connection with their testimony in a criminal trial. The underlying criminal trial stemmed from the rape and murder of an elderly woman, which occurred in 1991. The defendant in that case was convicted, in part, based on a confession that he provided. The defendant was later granted a new trial, and the homicide detectives provided testimony concerning the methods used to obtain the confession. The defendant was acquitted. 

Following the acquittal, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office arrested the homicide detectives based on their testimony at the re-trial. Two of the three detectives were later convicted of perjury and related offenses. The criminal defendant later filed a civil rights lawsuit, which settled for millions of dollars. 

In another case, a former Philadelphia homicide detective, James Pitts, was arrested and convicted of felony charges for perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the 2010 interrogation of a homicide suspect. In that case, Pitts investigated a gruesome robbery/homicide and developed O.O. as a suspect. Pitts interrogated O.O. and obtained a confession. The confession was later used to prosecute and convict O.O. for homicide and related charges. In 2021, O.O.’s conviction was overturned, in part, based on the District Attorney’s finding that O.O.’s confession was coerced. In 2022, Pitts was arrested for perjury and related charges following a grand jury indictment. Pitts was later convicted and sentenced to more than two years’ incarceration. 

Following Pitts’ incarceration, several civil lawsuits were filed against him, alleging he coerced the plaintiffs into providing false confessions and maliciously prosecuted them for crimes they did not commit. 

Prior to the case of Wallace v. City of Phila. et al., 2025 WL 2935248 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2021), the District Court routinely allowed those lawsuits to advance through discovery simply based on an allegation that law enforcement officials obtained coerced confessions and/or physically assaulted criminal defendants. However, in Wallace, District Court Judge Karen Marston ruled that barebones claims of malicious prosecution, in the absence of something more, do not establish a viable malicious prosecution or wrongful incarceration claim. 

In Wallace, the plaintiff brought claims of malicious prosecution, deprivation of due process, violation of the plaintiff’s right against self-incrimination, civil conspiracy, failure to intervene, Section 1983 Monell violations, and state law malicious prosecution. In the complaint, Wallace alleged that, in 2012, he was wrongfully convicted of second-degree murder based on Pitts’ wrongful conduct, including obtaining a false confession. In that case, Wallace claimed that he was merely present in a home when his associate shot and killed an off-duty police officer. Wallace claimed that following the shooting, Pitts obtained a coerced confession from him while he was heavily sedated and that Pitts also forcibly requested that bullet fragments be retrieved from the plaintiff’s body, against his will. Wallace was subsequently convicted of homicide and related charges and served more than a decade in prison before his conviction was overturned. 

In response to the complaint, Pitts filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds including: (1) the complaint failed to establish that he engaged in conduct that amounted to malicious prosecution; (2) the plaintiff failed to establish that Pitts fabricated evidence; (3) the plaintiff failed to establish that exculpatory evidence was deliberately withheld or suppressed; (4) the plaintiff did not establish that an adequate investigation was not conducted: (5) the plaintiff did not establish a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination; (6) the plaintiff failed to establish a civil conspiracy; and (7) the plaintiff failed to establish a claim of failure to intervene. 

In granting the motion to dismiss in its entirety, Judge Marston zeroed in on the malicious prosecution claim and found that, in order to establish such a claim, a plaintiff must establish the following: (1) the government initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in the plaintiff’s favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the government acted maliciously or for a purpose other than bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with a legal seizure. Wallace, 2025 WL 2935248, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2025). 

In dismissing the claims, the court emphasized that the plaintiff did not put forth any allegations to suggest that Pitts knowingly provided false information to prosecutors in order to secure a conviction. In drawing this distinction, Judge Marston doubled down on a well-established proposition that a mere allegation of coercion, without more, is a legal conclusion that ordinarily will not survive a motion to dismiss. Id. at *8 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2025). Last, Judge Marston clearly delineated that the Constitution does not provide individuals with a so-called right to have an adequate investigation conducted. Id. 

Defense Digest, Vol. 31, No. 4, December 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Expands Family Leave Protections Effective July 17, 2026

On January 17, 2026, Governor Murphy signed into law legislation expanding the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA). Beginning July 17, 2026, significant amendments to the NJFLA will expand job-protected family leave to smaller businesses and more employees across the state. The new law broadens coverage by lowering the threshold for private employers from 30 employees to 15 employees, meaning many smaller businesses will now be subject to the NJFLA. Employees of state and local government agencies will continue to be covered regardless of the size of the employer. The amendments also make it easier for employees to qualify for leave. Under the revised law, an employee will be eligible after three months of employment and at least 250 hours worked during the preceding 12 months, replacing the previous requirement of 12 months of employment and 1,000 hours worked. Currently, New Jersey's Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs provide eligible employees with wage replacement while they are on leave but do not independently guarantee job protection. The recent amendments to the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) expand these protections by extending job-protected leave to additional employees. Under the amended law, employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits may be entitled to return to the same position they held before taking leave, or to an equivalent position with the same seniority, status, pay, and benefits. Although the legislation also states that it does not expand or modify an employee's reinstatement rights under the NJFLA, the amendments appear to provide job protection to eligible employees receiving TDI or FLI benefits without requiring them to separately satisfy the eligibility requirements of the NJFLA or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). As a result, some employees may be entitled to longer periods of job-protected leave than were previously available under existing law. With these amendments, New Jersey continues to strengthen workplace protections by expanding access to job-protected family leave for eligible employees. These changes significantly expand access to job-protected family leave and may require employers to update their leave policies, employee handbooks, and HR practices. Notably, employers who were previously not required to administer NJFLA may need to amend their policies and/or create new protocols to come into compliance with the NJFLA. Failure to do so would prove costly, as the penalties for non-compliance are significant.

Casey Alan Coyle Joins Marshall Dennehey's PA Appellate Practice as a Shareholder in Harrisburg and Philadelphia

News

Marshall Dennehey Expands Leading Pennsylvania Appellate Practice With Addition of Shareholder Casey Coyle

Thought Leadership

Congress Passes Financial Exploitation Prevention Act

On June 25, 2026, the House passed the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act of 2025 (“the Act”) by a vote of 414 to 2. The Act allows financial advisors and firms to delay suspicious transactions regarding the accounts of clients who are 65 or older, if they believe financial exploitation has occurred or is about to take place. With the advancement of technology and AI, the House’s overwhelming bipartisan passage of the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act represents an important step in strengthening the financial industry’s ability to combat the growing threat of elder financial exploitation. The Act recognizes what advisors have long known that financial professionals are often the first to detect suspicious behavior but have historically lacked clear legal authority to intervene before irreversible financial harm occurs. From the industry’s perspective, the bill accomplishes several important objectives, including the following: (1) Provides a practical “pause button” by allowing financial professionals to temporarily delay certain transaction requests when there is a reasonable belief that a senior or vulnerable adult is being financially exploited; (2) Empowers financial professionals to act by providing greater certainty that firms can act in good faith to protect clients without unnecessary legal risk; and (3) Strengthens investor protection without sacrificing client rights by allowing temporary delays based on a reasonable suspicion of exploitation, which is intended only to allow additional review and not to deny clients access to their money indefinitely. In sum, the Financial Exploitation Prevention Act will equip financial professionals with practical, carefully tailored tools to stop suspected financial exploitation before client assets are lost. By allowing firms to temporarily delay suspicious transactions under defined circumstances, Congress is recognizing the critical role advisors play as the first line of defense against increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes. The Act strikes an appropriate balance between protecting vulnerable investors and preserving individual financial autonomy, while reinforcing collaboration among advisors, families, and law enforcement to combat financial exploitation. The bill now awaits Senate action.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Result

No-Cause Jury Verdict Secured in Wrongful Death Trial

We successfully obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a 13-day wrongful death trial. The decedent, a 59-year-old man, was admitted to the emergency room on February 15, 2019, with complaints of abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and constipation, despite the use of laxatives. The patient did not complain of any nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea. He had a significant medical history including diabetes, hypertension, prior coronary artery stenting, morbid obesity (with past gastric bypass surgery), longstanding ventral hernia, and back pain. A CT scan revealed multiple hernias and a potential closed-loop bowel obstruction, leading to a surgery consultation. Our client, an emergency general surgeon, interpreted that the patient did not have a closed loop or any significant obstruction and recommended non-surgical management. The patient was approved to have clear liquids, and had a vomiting incident shortly after, but our client was not notified. The patient was returned to NPO status, and after improving overnight, he was returned to “clears” and additional medical and renal consults were ordered. Our client did not receive any communications from the residents/nurses of any changes in the patient’s condition. On February 18, 2019, two rapid responses were called due to increased heart rate and vomiting. It is believed that the vomiting resulted in aspiration, causing sepsis, ultimately leading to the patient’s death. During the trial, the plaintiff’s sole medical expert highlighted imaging on the wrong hernia, which called into question all of his opinions in the case. We made key objections related to the expert testimony, limiting what the allegations were, and preventing new allegations from being made. After approximately two and a half hours of deliberating, the jury returned a no-cause verdict. 

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

SIU Gets a Boost: NJ Supreme Court Affirms Insurers' Right to Litigate, Not Arbitrate, Fraud Claims

In a significant win for insurers' Special Investigation Units, the New Jersey Supreme Court clarified that statutory insurance fraud and racketeering claims may proceed in court rather than through PIP arbitration. At issue was whether insurance fraud claims brought under New Jersey's Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA) and the state's Anti-Racketeering Act (NJ RICO) are subject to mandatory arbitration under the Automobile Insurance Cost Reduction Act’s (AICRA) PIP dispute-resolution framework. Allstate had sued a network of medical practices, physicians, and related corporate entities, alleging a scheme to extract more than $1.7 million in PIP benefits through fraudulent and misleading billing. The trial court dismissed Allstate's complaint and compelled arbitration, reading AICRA's arbitration clause — which covers "any dispute regarding the recovery of... benefits" under PIP coverage, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-5.1(a) — as sweeping in fraud and racketeering claims along with routine benefit disputes. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal, adopting Judge Gilson's opinion below (480 N.J. Super. 566 (App. Div. 2025)) as its own reasoning. The Court held that IFPA and RICO claims fall outside the scope of AICRA's PIP arbitration mechanism because that "streamlined and specialized" process cannot grant the relief those statutes contemplate — treble damages, injunctive relief, broad discovery, and joinder of third parties — and because arbitrators lack authority to award compensatory or treble damages to an insurer. The Court also rejected the argument that Allstate's own Decision Point Review Plans independently compel arbitration, finding those plan provisions no broader than AICRA's own arbitration clause. Notably, the Court expressly disagreed with the Third Circuit's contrary holding in GEICO v. Mt. Prospect Chiropractic Center, 98 F.4th 463 (3d Cir. 2024), concluding it is not bound by that federal interpretation of New Jersey law. Insurers retain the right to pursue IFPA and RICO claims in the Law Division, with a jury trial. For SIU units and NJ insurance carriers, this decision is a significant win: it forecloses defense clinics' primary procedural tool for shunting fraud investigations into limited-scope PIP arbitration, where treble damages, RICO relief, and meaningful discovery were never realistically available. Carriers building cases against fraudulently structured clinics, straw-owned practices, or coordinated billing networks can now proceed with confidence that a well-pleaded IFPA/RICO complaint stays in the Law Division rather than being diverted to arbitration on a motion to compel. Practically, this strengthens SIU's leverage in settlement negotiations, preserves civil discovery tools (subpoenas, depositions, joinder of related corporate entities) critical to unwinding complex ownership and referral schemes, and resolves the split with the Third Circuit in favor of NJ insurers — at least as a matter of state law. Expect increased reliance on IFPA civil actions, rather than PIP arbitration demands, as SIU's primary enforcement vehicle going forward.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars