Kronisch v. United States: Implications of MKULTRA Document Destruction on Bivens and FTCA Claims

Introduction

The case of Gloria Kronisch, executrix of the estate of Stanley Milton Glickman versus the United States of America and several CIA officials delves deep into the murky waters of government-sanctioned experimentation and the legal aftermath of such actions. At its core, the case examines whether Stanley Milton Glickman was an unwitting victim of the CIA's MKULTRA program, specifically involving the administration of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and whether the legal claims he brought forward were timely under applicable statutes.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case after the District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Glickman alleged that in October 1952, he was unknowingly administered LSD in a Paris café as part of the CIA's MKULTRA program. The District Court dismissed his claims on grounds that they were time-barred and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the named CIA officials.

The appellate court affirmed part of the dismissal, particularly the time-barred Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims against the United States government and Bivens claims alleging a broad CIA-led LSD program. However, it vacated the dismissal of Glickman's specific Bivens claim against Sidney Gottlieb, one of the CIA officials, allowing Glickman to proceed with this particular allegation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key legal precedents:

• Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): Governs claims against the United States for torts committed by federal employees.
• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics: Establishes a cause of action for individuals to sue federal officials for constitutional violations.
• Kubrick v. United States: Discusses the accrual of claims under the FTCA when misrepresentation by the government affects the plaintiff's understanding of their rights.
• Nation-Wide Check Corp. v. Forest Hills Distributors: Establishes the rule for drawing adverse inferences from the destruction of evidence.
• Armory v. Delamirie: An old common-law case referenced to illustrate the adverse inference principle.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning centered on two main legal issues: the statute of limitations and the destruction of evidence under the MKULTRA program.

Statute of Limitations

Glickman's FTCA claims were deemed time-barred because he became aware of his potential injury and its cause before the statute's expiration. Even under the "diligence-discovery rule," which can extend the limitations period when the government conceals wrongdoing, the court found that Glickman failed to act with reasonable diligence after discovering his potential claims.

Similarly, his Bivens claims against the broader CIA program were dismissed for being untimely. However, his specific Bivens claim alleging that Gottlieb himself administered the LSD-laced drink was allowed to proceed. This was because the court recognized that there might be sufficient circumstantial evidence linking Gottlieb directly to the alleged incident, especially considering the destruction of MKULTRA documents, which could support an adverse inference against him.

Destruction of Evidence and Adverse Inference

The court delved into the consequences of the CIA's intentional destruction of MKULTRA records in 1973. Under the principle established in Nation-Wide Check Corp. and Armory v. Delamirie, the destruction of relevant evidence allows the court to draw an adverse inference against the party responsible. In this case, the destruction of the MKULTRA files hindered Glickman's ability to substantiate his claims, thereby tipping the scales in his favor regarding the legitimacy of his allegations against Gottlieb.

The appellate court concluded that while the destruction of documents alone isn't sufficient to sustain an adverse inference, combined with the circumstantial evidence presented by Glickman, it warranted allowing his specific Bivens claim to proceed.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future litigation involving government misconduct and the preservation of evidence:

• Adverse Inference Doctrine: Reinforces the principle that intentional destruction of evidence by the government can aid plaintiffs in alleging misconduct, even when direct evidence is lacking.
• Actors within Government Programs: Highlights the challenges plaintiffs face when alleging wrongdoing by high-ranking officials within covert programs.
• Timeliness of Claims: Emphasizes the importance of timely action in bringing forth legal claims, especially when the government's actions may have concealed the wrongdoing.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

The FTCA allows individuals to sue the United States in federal court for most torts committed by persons acting on behalf of the government. However, there are strict time limits for bringing such claims.

Bivens Claim

A Bivens claim allows individuals to sue federal government officials for violating their constitutional rights, even in the absence of a specific statute providing a remedy.

Adverse Inference

This legal principle allows a court to assume that destroyed or missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. It serves to deter parties from hiding evidence relevant to litigation.

Conclusion