[brief] ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF WHEN A FAVORABLE TERMINATION OF THE UNDERLYING CRIMINAL PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY REGARDED AS ORDERED AND OFFICIAL.  In addition to the longstanding precedent that further contravenes the trial court’s misapplication of the discovery rule, the Appellant has properly advanced the legal argument that the final judgment rule and Rule 3:21-5 fully support the legal holding that the subject malicious prosecution claim accrued two years from the judgment of acquittal, and not date of the verdict.  The Respondents offer no analysis of either rule, but instead continue to embrace the legally unsupported opinions of the United States District Court and also the trial court below.  Rule 3:21-5 brings finality to these defendants found not guilty.  Neither the trial court below nor the Respondents considered or addressed the very obvious ancillary issues that flow from a judgment of acquittal, beyond simply the dismissal of the criminal charges, which the New Jersey Rules of Court clearly anticipate.  It is well supported that only upon a judgment of acquittal may a defendant (who has been found not guilty) then address additional remaining substantive legal issues in connection with the criminal case, such as the return of personal property seized, restitution, forfeiture, and ultimately, expungement.  These issues are substantive, not procedural, and again may only be resolved upon entry of a written order.  It would be an obviously futile exercise for an acquitted defendant to apply to the court for an expungement absent the formality of a judgment of acquittal, but based only upon a verdict.  Rather than encouraging finality, the trial court below sought to preclude and punish those defendants who are legally obligated to await a written order from the court.  Moreover, as the United States District Court did not consider Rule 3:21-5, and neither did the trial court below, the trial court’s reliance upon the District Court’s decision is all the more flawed.  Absent relying upon any decisional law to support the inexplicable application of the discovery rule to a cause of action for malicious prosecution, the trial court ignored these glaringly obvious and much discussed considerations, yet unfortunately and hastily proceeded to analyze the subject facts akin to a personal injury case.  The final judgment rule is an even older and more substantive doctrine fostering finality in litigation.  It stands for the proposition that it is only what a court adjudicates, not what it says in an opinion, that has any direct legal effect.  Hayes v. Delamotte, 231 N.J. 373, 387 (2018) (quoting Isko v. Planning Bd., 51, N.J. 162, 175 (1968) and Suburban Dep’t Stores v. City of East Orange, 47 N.J. Super. 472, 479 (App. Div. 1957).  While the Respondent’s submissions argue that the Appellant did not need to wait for a final judgment as the State of New Jersey could not have appealed a not guilty verdict, this very obtuse argument must fail.  By way of further explanation, this Court could envision a scenario where the formal filing of a judgment of acquittal would be absolutely necessary and utterly required after a verdict of not guilty has been announced.  For example, if the State faced a scenario of post-verdict jury tampering, it could then move to set aside the verdict and seek a new trial.  Similarly, a scenario could also arise where a trial judge sets aside a jury’s guilty verdict as against the weight of the evidence, pursuant to Rule 3:20.  The Respondents have yet again offered nothing to rebut this argument.