$1 verdict on excessive force claim is sustained on appeal

This false arrest case arises from a stolen jacket. The victim told the police that plaintiff was the culprit. The road to federal trial was complicated; while the criminal court found plaintiff guilty, that conviction was overturned on appeal. Plaintiff proceeded with his excessive force claim at trial after the district court dismissed the malicious prosecution claim on summary judgment. Plaintiff, however, only recovered $1 on his excessive force claim. This appeal seeks to reinstate the malicious prosecution claim and a retrial on the excessive force claim.

The case is Banyan v. Sikorski, a summary order issued on April 21. The most interesting issue relates to the excessive force claim. The jury found the police used excessive force in arresting plaintiff, but it only awarded him a dollar. Not much of a victory. Hence, this appeal. The argument is that the trial court should not have allowed the jury to see the post-arrest video, where plaintiff, now at the police station, was screaming at the police and acting violently. This video could not have endeared plaintiff to the jury; plaintiff argued as such on appeal, stating that the video "invited jurors to find against Banyan because they disapproved of his arguably threatening, belligerent behavior at the precinct."

Plaintiff argues that the video was improper "propensity" evidence intended to show that plaintiff is prone to outbursts and must have resisted the arrest, causing the police to use excessive force. But the Court of Appeals (Wesley, Park and Coombe [D.J.]) holds that the video was admissible to show plaintiff's "condition after the incident," relevant to assess the impact of any force that was used on him and any injuries that he suffered. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals holds. Plaintiff further argues the video was inadmissible because its relevant was greatly outweighed by its prejudicial effect on the jury. You can make such an argument on the basis that the harm flowing from the evidence outweighs the good. But the trial court instructed the jury that the video was only relevant for the purpose noted above, and we presume that juries follow the trial court's instructions on how to evaluate evidence. This means the one dollar verdict stands, as plaintiff is not entitled to a new trial.

On the malicious prosecution claims, they were properly dismissed on summary judgment, the Second Circuit holds, because the grand jury indicted him, creating a presumption that the jury had probable cause to make the arrest for assaulting the police and resisting arrest.