False confession verdict for $6.5 million is sustained on appeal

This is a hell of a case. The plaintiff gave a coerced confession for a double homicide that he did not commit, as the arresting officer took advantage of the plaintiff's schizoprehnia. The plaintiff spent over a decade in jail for this, but he was eventually exonerated after a law enforcement task force revealed that plaintiff had nothing to do with the murders, and other people eventually went to jail for these crimes. The jury awarded plaintiff over $5 million for pain and suffering and $1.5 million in punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirms the verdict.

The case is Ortiz v. Stambach, issued on May 9, more than a year after oral argument. The factual background reads like a something out of a Netflix miniseries, or a John Grisham book. Defendant Stambach found a way to get Ortiz to confess to the murders. There was no corroborating evidence proving that Ortiz had killed anyone. The jury convicted Ortiz of murder. The U.S. Attorney's office eventually exonerated plaintiff, resulting in this lawsuit and the positive jury verdict.

The Court of Appeals (Leval, Bianco and Raggi) sustains the verdict, rejecting all of defendant's challenges, holding as follows:

1. The malicious prosecution verdict is sound because, while the grand jury indictment usually proves the officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff, the jury was able to find the indictment was procured by fraud. Holdings like this in the Second Circuit are rare: it is difficult to prove such fraud, but in this case, the Court finds, the jury was able to credit plaintiff's testimony that his mental state at the time of the confession should have convinced the officer that plaintiff was making a false confession. That kind of circumstantial evidence is enough to win the malicious prosecution claim. We leave it to the jury to decide whether to believe a testifying officer in a case like this, especially since the officer had inconsistencies in his testimony. The jury disbelieved the defendant and that is enough for plaintiff to win. The fabrication of evidence verdict is also sound, largely for the same reasons the malicious prosecution verdict is sound. 

2. Defendant raises qualified immunity argument, which shields law enforcement from civil lawsuits if they acted reasonably in light of clearly established law. This immunity is a wild card in Section 1983 cases. There no way to really predict if prior case law is sufficiently similar to this case to defeat qualified immunity. Here, defendant actually waived the argument, failing to raise it at trial. That makes things easier for the Court of Appeals. In light of that waiver, he has to prove the verdict is a manifest injustice, but that is not an easy argument to win, certainly not on the facts in this case.

3. Defendant seeks a new trial based on the sufficiency of the evidence. But even assuming such an argument is reviewable on appeal, "the court should only grant such motion when the jury's verdict is egregious" or the jury has "reached a seriously erroneous result or the verdict is a miscarriage of justice." Since courts defer to the jury's credibility assessments, to articulate this standard is to resolve the issue. The Court finds no miscarriage of justice here.

4. By now you can see why the Court sustains the $1.5 million in punitive damages. The jury was able to find the coerced concession was egregious and malicious sufficient to support this relief. As for the pain and suffering, while the courts have authority to reduce the damages, the jury was able to credit plaintiff's testimony about how horrible prison conditions were in light of his mental health struggles, and courts have awarded $1 million for each year of wrongful incarceration.