Posts
The Second Circuit almost never hears cases en banc, in which all the judges on the court and not just a three-judge panel convene to decide a case of exceptional importance. But when the court declines to hear a case en banc, the judges sometimes issue decisions of their own either defending the decision not to rehear the case or complaining that the initial three-judge ruling was wrong and the court must sit en banc to correct it. This time around, we have some en banc smackdowns on the issue of when you can sue the federal government over the religiously-motivated placement on the "no fly list"
The case is Tanvir v. Tanzin, issued on February 14. The initial panel said the plaintiffs could sue the government under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which provides damages for government-sponsored religious discrimination. The court said the plaintiffs could sue the government which placed them on the no-fly list because they would not violate their Muslim principles in refusing to serve as FBI informants to spy on their fellow Muslims. This case has Supreme Court written all over it, as it challenges a federal program and the Court of Appeals weighed in on an issue involving national security and no-fly lists. These en banc opinions probably enhance the certiorari value.
The judges who did not want en banc review and defend the three-judge ruling (Pooler and Katzmann) write that the pro-en banc judges are wrongly characterizing the initial panel ruling as a Bivens case. Under the Bivens doctrine, you can sue the federal government for constitutional violations only in rare instances. But, these judges say, this is not a Bivens case. It's a RFRA case. And since RFRA contains an express right of action with an express provision for "appropriate relief," the initial three-judge panel faithfully applied that statute in holding the plaintiffs could sue the federal government for damages over the religiously-motivated no-fly determination.
Writing for the pro-en banc judges, Judge Jacobs (joined by Judges Cabranes and Sullivan) writes that a comparable religious discrimination statute, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which applies to the states, does not provide for a private right action against the government for money damages, as per Washington v. Gonyea, 731 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2013). The three-judge holding in Tanvir undermines the Washington holding, Judge Jacobs says, and the three-judge panel essentially created a new Bivens cause of action, which the Supreme Court has forbidden. The end result, Judge Jacobs says, is that government officials will be gun-shy in discharging their duties out of fear of litigation, and they cannot always rely on qualified immunity, such that "the safest course for a government employee in doubt would be to avoid doing one's job, which is not a choice in need of encouragement." Of course, that might be the case if the damages come out of the government employee's pocket, but the government usually pays out the damages award, or else -- let's face it -- no one would work for the government. Jacobs punctuates his opinion with a final slap: "the panel opinion is quite wrong and actually dangerous."
Monday, February 18, 2019
Friday, February 15, 2019
Redacted court ruling vacates guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel
The Court of Appeals has ruled that a criminal defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel who failed to tell him about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. What makes the case interesting is that (1) portions of the case are redacted and (2) the federal government flip-flopped on whether to support the defendant's arguments or not.
The case is Doe v. United States, issued on February 14. The facts are not that unusual. Doe pleaded guilty to a crime but his lawyer, who was not well-versed in immigration law, did not tell him he faced mandatory deportation if he pleaded guilty. The case reaches the Second Circuit because the district court rejected the ineffective assistance argument. The government initially opposed Doe's application for coram nobis relief. Then it changed its mind and asked the district court to rule in Doe's favor. But then, on appeal, the government came out against Doe's position. This troubles the Court of Appeals (Katzmann, Kearse and Chin). The unspoken reality is this flip-flop was probably a Trump administration maneuver. But the Court of Appeals does quote from former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who said the Justice Department is supposed to seek justice and not just convictions. In the end, based on how the Court views the record and Doe's desire to clear his name and fight the charges, had Doe known about the immigration consequences of his plea, he might not have taken the plea.
Portions of the Second Circuit ruling are blacked out, so we don't know (1) the identity of lawyers representing Doe or even the federal government; (2) which district court this case originated in; (3) what crime Doe pleaded guilty to; (4) the dates certain things in the case happened
The case is Doe v. United States, issued on February 14. The facts are not that unusual. Doe pleaded guilty to a crime but his lawyer, who was not well-versed in immigration law, did not tell him he faced mandatory deportation if he pleaded guilty. The case reaches the Second Circuit because the district court rejected the ineffective assistance argument. The government initially opposed Doe's application for coram nobis relief. Then it changed its mind and asked the district court to rule in Doe's favor. But then, on appeal, the government came out against Doe's position. This troubles the Court of Appeals (Katzmann, Kearse and Chin). The unspoken reality is this flip-flop was probably a Trump administration maneuver. But the Court of Appeals does quote from former Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who said the Justice Department is supposed to seek justice and not just convictions. In the end, based on how the Court views the record and Doe's desire to clear his name and fight the charges, had Doe known about the immigration consequences of his plea, he might not have taken the plea.
Portions of the Second Circuit ruling are blacked out, so we don't know (1) the identity of lawyers representing Doe or even the federal government; (2) which district court this case originated in; (3) what crime Doe pleaded guilty to; (4) the dates certain things in the case happened
Thursday, February 14, 2019
No injunction for inmate who remains in administrative segregation
This is a tough case for the Second Circuit, asked to overrule prison officials who plan to keep an inmate confined in "administrative segregation" for the foreseeable future even though he has not committed a violent incident in jail in more than 20 years. The Court of Appeals rules against the inmate.
The case is H'Shaka v. O'Gorman, a summary order issued on February 13.While the plaintiff has not committed a violent infraction in prison in more than 20 years, he did kill someone for no apparent reason before he turned 18, he attacked a correction officer with a razor blade, severely slashing his face, and committed four other assaults between 1996 and 1999. He remains in administrative segregation under a regulation that permits that if officials think his "presence in general population would pose a threat to the safety and security of the facility." That means plaintiff is in his cell 23 hours a day without access to prison programs or worship, and his one-hour-a-day recreation is spent in a cage.
Plaintiff sought an injunction in the district court, claiming the continued confinement violates the Constitution. The district court denied the injunction and the Second Circuit (Katzmann, Hall and Lynch) says plaintiff cannot satisfy his heavy burden in showing the trial court clearly erred. The leading case in this area is Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2017), which requires prison officials to meaningful review his segregated status under the Due Process Clause. This involves a balancing test, with prison security on one side of the equation. The decisionmakers submitted declarations stating they are open to freeing up plaintiff inside the prison at some point in the future, but they were never cross-examined, "so we are in a poor position to judge their credibility at this stage, let alone to second-guess the district court's assessment," the court says. In any event, it does look like the jail considered plaintiff's recent behavior.
While the Second Circuit notes "the well-documented and devastating psychological and physical effects that prolonged isolation can have," the record does not speak to the specific harms that plaintiff will face if he remains in "ad seg," as they say in the prison world. Overall, maybe the record will shape up differently in discovery, the Court of Appeals says, but for now, plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
The case is H'Shaka v. O'Gorman, a summary order issued on February 13.While the plaintiff has not committed a violent infraction in prison in more than 20 years, he did kill someone for no apparent reason before he turned 18, he attacked a correction officer with a razor blade, severely slashing his face, and committed four other assaults between 1996 and 1999. He remains in administrative segregation under a regulation that permits that if officials think his "presence in general population would pose a threat to the safety and security of the facility." That means plaintiff is in his cell 23 hours a day without access to prison programs or worship, and his one-hour-a-day recreation is spent in a cage.
Plaintiff sought an injunction in the district court, claiming the continued confinement violates the Constitution. The district court denied the injunction and the Second Circuit (Katzmann, Hall and Lynch) says plaintiff cannot satisfy his heavy burden in showing the trial court clearly erred. The leading case in this area is Proctor v. LeClaire, 846 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2017), which requires prison officials to meaningful review his segregated status under the Due Process Clause. This involves a balancing test, with prison security on one side of the equation. The decisionmakers submitted declarations stating they are open to freeing up plaintiff inside the prison at some point in the future, but they were never cross-examined, "so we are in a poor position to judge their credibility at this stage, let alone to second-guess the district court's assessment," the court says. In any event, it does look like the jail considered plaintiff's recent behavior.
While the Second Circuit notes "the well-documented and devastating psychological and physical effects that prolonged isolation can have," the record does not speak to the specific harms that plaintiff will face if he remains in "ad seg," as they say in the prison world. Overall, maybe the record will shape up differently in discovery, the Court of Appeals says, but for now, plaintiff is not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Wrongful discharge to refusing to drive too-heavy truck on interstate highway
This case acquaints us with a wrongful discharge claim that most of us are not familiar with. Under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, a trucking company cannot fire a truck driver for refusing to drive a truck on an interstate highway that exceeds the federal weight limit. That's what happened to the plaintiff in this case, and a jury in New Haven awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. That verdict is upheld on appeal.
The case is Kennedy v. Supreme Forest Products, a summary order issued on February 6. Plaintiff was directed to drive a truck that exceeded 80,000 pounds. The truck was carrying a load of mulch. This was in April 2014; springtime is a good time to deliver mulch. But this was too much mulch, so plaintiff objected, and was fired as a result. The jury awarded him nearly $12,000 in compensatory damages and $425,000 in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to $250,000, the statutory cap. The company challenges liability and the size of the punitive damages award.
Management says the verdict was rooted in speculation because plaintiff never testified that he would have operated the truck on an interstate highway. But there was no speculation, the Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Calabresi and Wesley) says, because plaintiff testified that he understood the federal weight limitation applied only to the "federal highway system" and he did not want to break "the overweight law." Also, "common sense and geography" supports the verdict, says the Second Circuit. Two of the judges on the panel are from Connecticut, so this was the wrong panel to suggest the jury got it wrong on this issue. Testimony demonstrated the plaintiff refused to transport two loads, originating in Southington, Connecticut and destined for Bridgeport and Hartford. The most direct route for these trips involves the interstate highway system, and "a local jury (as this one was) would not even have needed a map" to know this. I guess if you live in the area, everyone knows this. As Judge Calabresi said at oral argument, "Connecticut only has so many highways" and it is unlikely plaintiff would have driven on "dirt roads."
What about the punitive damages? The $250,000 is the cap under federal law for these claims, and the jury was able to find that defendant was motivated by greed and repeat offenses. As for liability for punitive damages, the evidence shows defendant tried to cover up what happened, telling HR that plaintiff had quit his job (and was not fired). And, the employee handbook discusses the applicable regulations, demonstrating that it knew the law, such that it "discriminated in the face of a perceived risk."
What this case tells us is that it is quite difficult to challenge a jury verdict on appeal, and that arguments that the verdict was rooted in speculation are equally difficult. Here, we inferred that defendant wanted plaintiff to drive his truck on the interstate highway, even though, I guess, no one directly testified to that fact. But we can draw inferences so long as they are not unreasonable.
The case is Kennedy v. Supreme Forest Products, a summary order issued on February 6. Plaintiff was directed to drive a truck that exceeded 80,000 pounds. The truck was carrying a load of mulch. This was in April 2014; springtime is a good time to deliver mulch. But this was too much mulch, so plaintiff objected, and was fired as a result. The jury awarded him nearly $12,000 in compensatory damages and $425,000 in punitive damages, which the trial court reduced to $250,000, the statutory cap. The company challenges liability and the size of the punitive damages award.
Management says the verdict was rooted in speculation because plaintiff never testified that he would have operated the truck on an interstate highway. But there was no speculation, the Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Calabresi and Wesley) says, because plaintiff testified that he understood the federal weight limitation applied only to the "federal highway system" and he did not want to break "the overweight law." Also, "common sense and geography" supports the verdict, says the Second Circuit. Two of the judges on the panel are from Connecticut, so this was the wrong panel to suggest the jury got it wrong on this issue. Testimony demonstrated the plaintiff refused to transport two loads, originating in Southington, Connecticut and destined for Bridgeport and Hartford. The most direct route for these trips involves the interstate highway system, and "a local jury (as this one was) would not even have needed a map" to know this. I guess if you live in the area, everyone knows this. As Judge Calabresi said at oral argument, "Connecticut only has so many highways" and it is unlikely plaintiff would have driven on "dirt roads."
What about the punitive damages? The $250,000 is the cap under federal law for these claims, and the jury was able to find that defendant was motivated by greed and repeat offenses. As for liability for punitive damages, the evidence shows defendant tried to cover up what happened, telling HR that plaintiff had quit his job (and was not fired). And, the employee handbook discusses the applicable regulations, demonstrating that it knew the law, such that it "discriminated in the face of a perceived risk."
What this case tells us is that it is quite difficult to challenge a jury verdict on appeal, and that arguments that the verdict was rooted in speculation are equally difficult. Here, we inferred that defendant wanted plaintiff to drive his truck on the interstate highway, even though, I guess, no one directly testified to that fact. But we can draw inferences so long as they are not unreasonable.
Wednesday, February 6, 2019
Intern at cosmetology school not entitled to salary under the FLSA
From time to time, the Second Circuit puts further gloss on the legal doctrine that says some entities do not have to pay their interns any salary. This case falls under that category. The Second Circuit says a student at a for-profit cosmetology school who had to perform barbering and other cosmetology services to the public at discounted prices.
The case is Velarde v. GW GJ, Inc., decided on February 5. The seminal case in this area is Glatt v. Searchlight Pictures, 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015), which says the intern is not entitled to any compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the intern is the "primary beneficiary" of the relationship. If the intern's employer is the "primary beneficiary" of the relationship, then the entity is an employer under the FLSA and the intern has to receive compensation.
Velarde is the lead plaintiff in a potential class action. After finishing eight weeks in the classroom, plaintiff worked at the salon run by the school, performing cosmetology services for the public. He also had to perform janitorial and clerical work. Under state law, to offer cosmetology services in New York, you have to complete 1,000 hours of coursework in various subject areas, like hair styling and presumably shampoo, like the beauty school dropout in Grease.
Plaintiff said the beauty school was the primary beneficiary of the relationship because it derived revenue from the work he performed for paying customers. He says that any training and skills he received from providing those services are "besides the point." The Second Circuit (Cabranes, Carney and Caproni [D.J.]) disagrees. The Court first holds that the "primary beneficiary" test applies in cases involving vocational schools or vocation-related programs. It then holds that plaintiff was the primary beneficiary of this relationship because he received significant benefits from his work at the Salon, as he was required to complete 1,000 hours of coursework, and he did so under the supervision of the school's instructors. And the school actually had plaintiff work exactly 1,000 hours, consistent with state licensing requirements. While plaintiff says he also performed clerical and janitorial duties, the Second Circuit has already held that relatively menial or repetitive tasks may legitimately comprise part of the intern relationship for which the intern receives no pay. And, while plaintiff points out the Salon earned money from his cosmetology work, "the Academy has no obligation not to turn a reasonable profit on its operations" and "this is not a case in which a business uses the facade of a vocational school to deceive students into working unexpectedly long hours without compensation, replacing the labor of its paid employees, or working hours well beyond long-standing state requirements."
The case is Velarde v. GW GJ, Inc., decided on February 5. The seminal case in this area is Glatt v. Searchlight Pictures, 811 F.3d 528 (2d Cir. 2015), which says the intern is not entitled to any compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act if the intern is the "primary beneficiary" of the relationship. If the intern's employer is the "primary beneficiary" of the relationship, then the entity is an employer under the FLSA and the intern has to receive compensation.
Velarde is the lead plaintiff in a potential class action. After finishing eight weeks in the classroom, plaintiff worked at the salon run by the school, performing cosmetology services for the public. He also had to perform janitorial and clerical work. Under state law, to offer cosmetology services in New York, you have to complete 1,000 hours of coursework in various subject areas, like hair styling and presumably shampoo, like the beauty school dropout in Grease.
Plaintiff said the beauty school was the primary beneficiary of the relationship because it derived revenue from the work he performed for paying customers. He says that any training and skills he received from providing those services are "besides the point." The Second Circuit (Cabranes, Carney and Caproni [D.J.]) disagrees. The Court first holds that the "primary beneficiary" test applies in cases involving vocational schools or vocation-related programs. It then holds that plaintiff was the primary beneficiary of this relationship because he received significant benefits from his work at the Salon, as he was required to complete 1,000 hours of coursework, and he did so under the supervision of the school's instructors. And the school actually had plaintiff work exactly 1,000 hours, consistent with state licensing requirements. While plaintiff says he also performed clerical and janitorial duties, the Second Circuit has already held that relatively menial or repetitive tasks may legitimately comprise part of the intern relationship for which the intern receives no pay. And, while plaintiff points out the Salon earned money from his cosmetology work, "the Academy has no obligation not to turn a reasonable profit on its operations" and "this is not a case in which a business uses the facade of a vocational school to deceive students into working unexpectedly long hours without compensation, replacing the labor of its paid employees, or working hours well beyond long-standing state requirements."
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
No fourth amendment liability in gun-seizure case
This search and seizure case involves assault weapons in Connecticut. The police entered this guy's home to retrieve weapons that plaintiff was not supposed to have because they mistakenly thought he had a felony conviction. He sues the officers for entering his home without a warrant. Plaintiff loses the case.
The case is Kaminsky v. Schirio, a summary order issued on January 24. The FBI told local police that plaintiff had a felony conviction and therefore was not allowed to possess any firearms. The police showed up at plaintiff's house, and plaintiff recognized one of them, so he said, "What's up Walt?" Plaintiff then waved the police into his house. Big mistake. When the police entered the house, plaintiff voluntarily surrendered his guns. The other cops waited outside and minded their own bees-wax, declining to search the property. A few days later, the police returned to plaintiff's home, and he turned over more guns. In all, plaintiff had 59 firearms in his house, there of which were illegal assault weapons.
In this fourth amendment case, plaintiff says the police had no right to be in his house. The Court (Katzmann, Hall and Lynch) disagrees. Kaminsky consented to their entry after they said, "can we come in?" Emphasis in "we," which means more than one. The officers who entered the house did so at plaintiff's invitation. Now, as it happens, plaintiff was not actually a convicted felon. His conviction from 1964 was not a felony at the time. But, the Court says, that is no reason to find the police violated the Fourth Amendment in entering the house, as it provides no basis to believe that plaintiff's consent for the police to enter was coerced.
So what about the officers who did not enter the house? Plaintiff sues them as well, claiming they were present on the curtilage and their mere presence violated the Constitution. This claim also fails under qualified immunity. Even if the area was curtilage, the officers reasonably believed the area in which they waited was not curtilage. The opinion is not clear as to why this is so, but in the statement of fact, the court notes the officers were standing near a public lake. While more recent Supreme Court cases may call the district court's analysis on the curtilage issue into question, under qualified immunity principles, we look at the law as it existed at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. As the officers are not expected to anticipate those developments, they did not knowingly violate clearly-established law. The case is dismissed.
The case is Kaminsky v. Schirio, a summary order issued on January 24. The FBI told local police that plaintiff had a felony conviction and therefore was not allowed to possess any firearms. The police showed up at plaintiff's house, and plaintiff recognized one of them, so he said, "What's up Walt?" Plaintiff then waved the police into his house. Big mistake. When the police entered the house, plaintiff voluntarily surrendered his guns. The other cops waited outside and minded their own bees-wax, declining to search the property. A few days later, the police returned to plaintiff's home, and he turned over more guns. In all, plaintiff had 59 firearms in his house, there of which were illegal assault weapons.
In this fourth amendment case, plaintiff says the police had no right to be in his house. The Court (Katzmann, Hall and Lynch) disagrees. Kaminsky consented to their entry after they said, "can we come in?" Emphasis in "we," which means more than one. The officers who entered the house did so at plaintiff's invitation. Now, as it happens, plaintiff was not actually a convicted felon. His conviction from 1964 was not a felony at the time. But, the Court says, that is no reason to find the police violated the Fourth Amendment in entering the house, as it provides no basis to believe that plaintiff's consent for the police to enter was coerced.
So what about the officers who did not enter the house? Plaintiff sues them as well, claiming they were present on the curtilage and their mere presence violated the Constitution. This claim also fails under qualified immunity. Even if the area was curtilage, the officers reasonably believed the area in which they waited was not curtilage. The opinion is not clear as to why this is so, but in the statement of fact, the court notes the officers were standing near a public lake. While more recent Supreme Court cases may call the district court's analysis on the curtilage issue into question, under qualified immunity principles, we look at the law as it existed at the time of the alleged constitutional violation. As the officers are not expected to anticipate those developments, they did not knowingly violate clearly-established law. The case is dismissed.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Court of Appeals reinstates claim that detectives falsified evidence in homicide case
This complicated Section 1983 case alleges that New York City detectives fabricated evidence that resulted in a murder conviction (for which the defendant was eventually exonerated halfway through his sentence when the police determined that someone else committed the homicide). The Court of Appeals reinstates the lawsuit, finding a jury may conclude the detectives did in fact falsify evidence, and that other prosecutorial misconduct denied the plaintiff a fair trial.
The case is Bellamy v. City of New York, issued on January 29. The victim was stabbed outside a grocery store in Queens. Bellamy was picked up for the killing, and the detectives produced two pieces of evidence at the criminal trial that implicated Bellamy: (1) an admission from Bellamy that this was a case of mistaken identity and that someone must have falsely accused him of murder and (2) an eye-witness statement that says Bellamy got into a fight with the victim on the day of the murder. The first evidentiary submission was significant because no one said anything to Bellamy about a murder when he allegedly blurted out that he did not kill anyone. The second evidentiary submission is significant because eyewitness statements like this are always useful for the prosecution.
We have an issue of fact for the jury in Bellamy's civil rights case on these alleged evidentiary fabrications. Bellamy swears he never made that admission, and the woman who purportedly made that eyewitness statement swears she never said it, either. This kind of he-said she-said factual dispute will get you a trial in the typical Section 1983 case, and it gets Bellamy a trial in this case, even though it involves a homicide. While the district court said Bellamy's denial was self-serving and not substantiated by any direct evidence, the law is that "self-serving" but sworn testimony is enough to create a factual dispute so long as the testimony is not contradictory and incomplete. The case for that proposition is Rentas v. Ruffin, 816 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2016).
The Court (Walker and Shea [D.J.], over Judge Jacobs' dissent) also reinstates Bellamy's civil case against the detectives because he adequately alleges the police withheld evidence that would have helped Bellamy's criminal defense. While the victim was killed on a Saturday, one eyewitness told the detectives that she saw Bellamy on a Sunday, when he was trying to buy beer before noon (you could not buy beer on Sunday mornings). The detectives did not turn over this statement to the prosecution. While the detectives claim this witness said no such thing, the witness herself said that she did. As Bellamy's guilt was a close call, this factual dispute could have a made a difference at the criminal trial. The jury in Bellamy's Section 1983 case must determine if the detectives failed to turn over this exculpatory evidence.
We have other allegations that a jury must also consider in determining if the detectives failed to turn over relevant evidence. Bellamy has evidence that one eyewitness said Bellamy was with someone else, Lee, on the day of the killing. That witness denies making that statement. This is relevant because there was no suspicion that Lee had anything to do with the murder. This is a close question, but it goes to the jury.
Finally, Bellamy has a Monell claim against the City, claiming municipal liability over its policy of failing to disclose the relocation benefits that one eyewitness would receive if he testified at the criminal trial. A Monell claim also arises from the prosecutor's improper summation. The Court holds that the actions of county prosecutors in New York are generally controlled by municipal policymakers for purposes of Monell, which says you cannot sue sue a municipality unless a municipal policy led to the violation of your constitutional rights. So what happened here was the result of municipal and not state policy, even though the DA's office says that alleged DA "misconduct" is a state function. As for non disclosing the relocation benefits, the jury could find the eyewitness was promised relocation and related benefits in return for testifying. These benefits were sufficiently lucrative for the witness that the jury could have taken them into account in assessing the witness's credibility. As for the ADA's summation, Monell liability may attach because the ADA was not disciplined by his superiors for telling the jury that he personally knew who committed the murder. The ADA also said that Bellamy was not going to get away with the murder, "not this time." This suggests Bellamy has killed others and gotten away with it. This and other problems with the summation fuel Bellamy's Monell claim, particularly since the trial evidence did not exactly point to Bellamy's guilt, and the DA's office had major misgivings about the quality of its case in any event.
The case is Bellamy v. City of New York, issued on January 29. The victim was stabbed outside a grocery store in Queens. Bellamy was picked up for the killing, and the detectives produced two pieces of evidence at the criminal trial that implicated Bellamy: (1) an admission from Bellamy that this was a case of mistaken identity and that someone must have falsely accused him of murder and (2) an eye-witness statement that says Bellamy got into a fight with the victim on the day of the murder. The first evidentiary submission was significant because no one said anything to Bellamy about a murder when he allegedly blurted out that he did not kill anyone. The second evidentiary submission is significant because eyewitness statements like this are always useful for the prosecution.
We have an issue of fact for the jury in Bellamy's civil rights case on these alleged evidentiary fabrications. Bellamy swears he never made that admission, and the woman who purportedly made that eyewitness statement swears she never said it, either. This kind of he-said she-said factual dispute will get you a trial in the typical Section 1983 case, and it gets Bellamy a trial in this case, even though it involves a homicide. While the district court said Bellamy's denial was self-serving and not substantiated by any direct evidence, the law is that "self-serving" but sworn testimony is enough to create a factual dispute so long as the testimony is not contradictory and incomplete. The case for that proposition is Rentas v. Ruffin, 816 F.3d 214 (2d Cir. 2016).
The Court (Walker and Shea [D.J.], over Judge Jacobs' dissent) also reinstates Bellamy's civil case against the detectives because he adequately alleges the police withheld evidence that would have helped Bellamy's criminal defense. While the victim was killed on a Saturday, one eyewitness told the detectives that she saw Bellamy on a Sunday, when he was trying to buy beer before noon (you could not buy beer on Sunday mornings). The detectives did not turn over this statement to the prosecution. While the detectives claim this witness said no such thing, the witness herself said that she did. As Bellamy's guilt was a close call, this factual dispute could have a made a difference at the criminal trial. The jury in Bellamy's Section 1983 case must determine if the detectives failed to turn over this exculpatory evidence.
We have other allegations that a jury must also consider in determining if the detectives failed to turn over relevant evidence. Bellamy has evidence that one eyewitness said Bellamy was with someone else, Lee, on the day of the killing. That witness denies making that statement. This is relevant because there was no suspicion that Lee had anything to do with the murder. This is a close question, but it goes to the jury.
Finally, Bellamy has a Monell claim against the City, claiming municipal liability over its policy of failing to disclose the relocation benefits that one eyewitness would receive if he testified at the criminal trial. A Monell claim also arises from the prosecutor's improper summation. The Court holds that the actions of county prosecutors in New York are generally controlled by municipal policymakers for purposes of Monell, which says you cannot sue sue a municipality unless a municipal policy led to the violation of your constitutional rights. So what happened here was the result of municipal and not state policy, even though the DA's office says that alleged DA "misconduct" is a state function. As for non disclosing the relocation benefits, the jury could find the eyewitness was promised relocation and related benefits in return for testifying. These benefits were sufficiently lucrative for the witness that the jury could have taken them into account in assessing the witness's credibility. As for the ADA's summation, Monell liability may attach because the ADA was not disciplined by his superiors for telling the jury that he personally knew who committed the murder. The ADA also said that Bellamy was not going to get away with the murder, "not this time." This suggests Bellamy has killed others and gotten away with it. This and other problems with the summation fuel Bellamy's Monell claim, particularly since the trial evidence did not exactly point to Bellamy's guilt, and the DA's office had major misgivings about the quality of its case in any event.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
