2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171015
E.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Leroy Davis was arrested on Oct 2, 2009; police say he discarded a bag containing a gun and crack cocaine; Davis denies possession and alleges evidence was found in an unauthorized search or planted.
- State charges for weapon and drug possession were filed, Davis was held briefly at Rikers and released on bond; state charges were dismissed April 1, 2010.
- Federal authorities later indicted Davis on related weapons and drug counts; he was held without bail in federal custody for 13 months and acquitted by a federal jury on Dec 17, 2010.
- Davis sued three NYPD officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution, alleging the officers falsified evidence and testimony and may have induced federal prosecution.
- The Court recognized potential civil liability for officers even where federal prosecutors and a grand jury later pursued the case, noting that officer misconduct that misleads prosecutors can satisfy causation for malicious prosecution.
- The court limited references to prior criminal proceedings at trial to avoid prejudice, allowed stipulation that the criminal prosecution terminated favorably, and resolved multiple in limine evidentiary disputes (e.g., exclusion of disciplinary records, AUSA testimony on prosecutorial decision-making, and certain other prejudicial topics).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers can be liable for harms from the federal prosecution | Davis: officers’ alleged false statements/testimony caused or procured federal prosecution and satisfy malicious prosecution causation | Defs: independent federal prosecutors/grand jury broke causal chain; attenuation bars liability | Court: Officers can be liable; misleading prosecutors removes attenuation defense; evidence may show active role in federal prosecution |
| Whether malicious-prosecution claim can rest on state proceedings despite later federal indictment | Davis: state prosecution period supports claim even if custody was brief | Defs: argue federal actions supersede or sever causation | Court: State-prosecution period can support claim; Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution theory applies even if released on bond |
| Use of prior federal criminal trial/regarding testimony and outcome | Davis: may need to show officers testified against him and the criminal case ended favorably | Defs: referencing prior trial risks unfair prejudice and usurping jury credibility findings | Court: Stipulation of favorable termination allowed; limited references to "prior legal proceeding" and testimony by officers about their prior sworn statements permitted for impeachment or to show they testified against Davis; broader references to credibility findings excluded |
| Admissibility of officers’ disciplinary records and personnel files | Davis: may be relevant to bias/pattern | Defs: seek to preclude as prejudicial | Court: Defs’ motion granted; disciplinary histories and personnel files excluded |
| Admissibility of evidence about third party (Terrell Norman) and informant status | Davis: Norman’s conduct may explain planted evidence/cooperation with police | Defs: seek to exclude evidence implying Norman was paid informant | Court: Evidence re Norman allowed; out-of-court statements need further briefing; testimony implying Norman was a paid informant excluded absent proper foundation |
| Admissibility of plaintiff’s criminal history and prosecutorial reasoning (AUSA testimony) | Defs: seek to use Davis’s criminal history and AUSA rationale to rebut claims | Davis: seeks exclusion as highly prejudicial | Court: Plaintiff’s criminal history and AUSA testimony about decision to prosecute excluded on Rule 403 grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (officer who maliciously misleads prosecutors cannot rely on attenuation defense)
- Cameron v. City of New York, 598 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (attenuation defense inapplicable where police allegedly maliciously misled prosecutors)
- Rohman v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 215 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2000) (discusses initiation element of malicious prosecution)
- Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994) (malicious-prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment can lie even where accused was released on bond)
- United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 1995) (credibility determinations are for the jury; limits on testimony opining on other witnesses’ credibility)