McCarty v. Gilchrist, No. 09-6220 (10th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff Curtis McCarty brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against Joyce Gilchrist, former forensic chemist for the Oklahoma City Police Department (OCPD), the OCPD Chief of Police and Oklahoma City, alleging multiple constitutional violations and damages under theories of malicious prosecution, municipal liability for failure to train or supervise, and supervisor liability for failure to train or supervise. In 1986, Plaintiff was charged in Oklahoma state court with first-degree murder. After a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction, finding that the State deprived Plaintiff of a "fair and adequate opportunity to have evidence examined by an independent forensic expert" and of an accurate forensic report necessary for intelligent cross-examination. Plaintiff was retried in 1989 and convicted again of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed the death sentence. Plaintiff unsuccessfully moved for post-conviction relief. In 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation launched an investigation into Ms. Gilchrist's forensic work. The Tenth Circuit found that Ms. Gilchrist had fabricated evidence in another case and was fired. Plaintiff filed another application for post-conviction relief. At the conclusion of a rehearing, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that Plaintiff did not receive a fair trial in 1989, but refused to dismiss the charges against him. At the close of a 2007 hearing, the court found that Ms. Gilchrist had intentionally destroyed the potentially exculpatory evidence recovered from the victim in Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff was released from prison after spending almost 19 years on death row. Subsequently, he brought this civil rights case. The federal district court dismissed his complaint, ruling that Plaintiff was barred by a two-year statute of limitations that began to run when his conviction was first reversed. Plaintiff appeals that dismissal. Upon careful consideration of the lower courts' records and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit found that Plaintiff indeed filed his action well beyond the two-year statute of limitations period for all theories listed in his complaint. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court's decision dismissing his case.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.