After a two-day Bench Trial in a malicious prosecu­tion action, the District Court altered video evidence, and ignored other "smoking gun" evidence. After al­tering the evidence, the District Court misrepresented that Petitioner submitted the altered evidence which was insufficient to prove malice, and therefore denied punitive damages, but awarded de minimis compen­satory damages. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Question 1: Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits a judgment to stand when the Court altered and misrepresented the one piece of evidence that it used to determine that malice was nonexistent; and ignored other "smoking gun" evidence which proved malice and lack of probable cause?

Question 2: Whether filing a fabricated Com­plaint constitutes malice.

Question 3: Whether advice of counsel defense is valid when Defendants admitted under oath that they knew the allegations in their Complaint were false?

whether-due-process-clause-permits-judgment-to-stand-when-court-altered-evidence