United States Fifth Circuit

In a malicious prosecution case, the trial court's erroneous use of "due process" instead of "unreasonable seizure" did not result in an incorrect verdict. Evidence was sufficient to support a conspiracy between officers to deprive plaintiff of Fourth Amendment rights.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/18/2003
• Published 02/18/2003

Judges

• PATRICK E. HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judge:, Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Nathan Mark Ralls (argued), Chaves, Gonzales & Hoblit, San Antonio, TX, Audrey Mullert Vicknair, Chaves, Gonzalez & Hoblit, Corpus Christi, TX, for Fragozo., Steven Norbert Harkiewicz (argued), Law Office of Steven N. Harkiewicz, San Antonio, TX, for Sanchez.


• For Appellees:
  
• Timothy B. Soefje (argued), Thornton, Summers, Biechlin, Dunham & Brown, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.