Anthony Torres v. City of Philadelphia
673 F. App'x 233
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- On July 10, Anthony Torres was taken from his mother's home in handcuffs to the Philadelphia homicide unit for questioning about Tammy Hewitt’s beating and death; he remained confined until charged on July 13 and was later convicted of murder.
- Torres alleged Detectives James Pitts and Omar Jenkins repeatedly interrogated, beat him, and broke his finger; detectives denied such force and said Torres refused to speak.
- Medical records: Torres reported the broken finger to correctional personnel on arrival; a July 20 medical record noted a “boney deformity.”
- At trial Torres pursued federal civil-rights claims (illegal seizure/false imprisonment/false arrest, excessive force, assault/battery) against the detectives and the City; the jury ruled for defendants and the District Court entered judgment for defendants.
- Torres appealed, challenging (1) jury instructions on seizure and excessive force and (2) two evidentiary rulings admitting pre-arrest reports and excluding a medical report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal standard for seizure (reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause) | Seizure that transported him to the station and held for days required probable cause; the jury should have been instructed accordingly | Court instructed reasonable suspicion; defendants argued the instruction was acceptable and counsel had assented | Appellate court reviewed for plain error and affirmed: error acknowledged (Dunaway requires probable cause) but not plain error because jury had an interrogatory including false arrest (probable-cause-based) and evidence supported probable cause at arrest |
| Excessive-force instruction (reasonableness standard during interrogation) | Any force on a compliant suspect during interrogation is unconstitutional; instruction misstated law by allowing reasonableness analysis | Instruction was from Third Circuit model and appropriate given Torres’s testimony that he was belligerent and described some de minimis contact | Reviewed for plain error; affirmed because instruction plausibly fit the factual record and no miscarriage of justice was shown |
| Admission of Officer Andrews’s pre-July 10 reports as hearsay | Reports were hearsay and prejudicial; should have been excluded | Reports were admitted not to prove truth but to show officers’ state of mind and whether probable cause existed; jury instructed accordingly | Admission was permissible because reports were relevant to probable cause and not offered solely for truth of matter asserted |
| Exclusion of Torres’s medical report for lack of authentication | Medical report should have been admitted to corroborate injuries | Report was not on exhibit list, not stipulated, and not authenticated or self-authenticating | Exclusion affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion because counsel failed to authenticate or lay foundation |
Key Cases Cited
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979) (transporting a person to the station for interrogation requires probable cause)
- Cooper Distrib. Co. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 180 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 1999) (objection vs. assent to jury instructions affects appellate review)
- Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 606 (3d Cir. 2011) (plain-error standard for jury instruction review)
- Franklin Prescriptions, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 424 F.3d 336 (3d Cir. 2005) (plain error in civil cases is to be invoked with caution)
- Ventresca v. United States, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (hearsay can form the basis for probable cause if sufficiently reliable)