Davis v. Velez
15 F. Supp. 3d 234
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Police officers Velez, Lukeson, and Calhoun were found liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, denial of fair trial, and malicious prosecution; plaintiff Leroy Davis was awarded $560,000 in compensatory and punitive damages; defendants moved for a new trial; the court denied the motions after a post-trial evidentiary showing about jury-room conduct; the trial centered on conflicting accounts: plaintiff’s version of events at 642 Chauncey St. versus defendants’ account of a bag dropped on Chauncey St. by the plaintiff; evidence supported verdict for either side; several claimed trial errors were raised, including extraneous jury-room information, hearsay concerning Terrel Norman, improper summation, juror illness/removal, and admissibility of prior incarceration and prior convictions; the court conducted an evidentiary hearing and applied Rule 59 standards to assess prejudice; the opinion concludes no miscarriage of justice and denial of post-trial motions.
- The record shows the jury was advised to decide solely on the evidence and law; extraneous materials (newspaper article, bags) were evaluated for prejudice and found not to taint the verdict; Norman’s hearsay statements were admitted as statements against interest due to his asserted privilege; juror experiments conducted in the jury room were considered prejudicial but harmless in light of the evidence; juror 8 was properly excused for illness; evidence of plaintiff’s prior incarceration and ten-year-old gun convictions were excluded under Rule 403 and Rule 609 respectively.
- The court notes that the weight of the evidence supported liability against the officers for false arrest and related claims, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying new-trial relief based on claimed prejudicial conduct.
- The memorandum-scripted structure of the trial included conflicting neighbor testimonies, conflicting officer testimony, and potential influence from extraneous materials not introduced into evidence.
- Overall, the court denied all of the defendants’ post-trial motions and upheld the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Extraneous information entering jury room tainting deliberations | Davis argues newspaper and bags affected juror deliberations | Defendants contend extraneous materials prejudiced the outcome | No miscarriage of justice; materials largely harmless |
| Admissibility of Terrel Norman’s hearsay statements | Norman’s statements supported fraud/planting claim | Statements were inadmissible hearsay | Statements admitted as against interest; error if any harmless |
| Improper statements during plaintiffs’ summation | Attorney comments influenced jury | Comments were within bounds and corrected by instructions | No reversible error; not prejudicial in context |
| Juror 8’s discharge during deliberations | Discharge without thorough inquiry prejudiced trial | Juror ill; discharge proper | Juror 8 properly excused; no mistrial required |
| Exclusion of plaintiff’s prior incarceration and convictions | Jail time and prior firearms convictions relevant to damages/credibility | Probative value outweighed by prejudice | Exclusions affirmed under Rule 403 and 609 |
Key Cases Cited
- Manley v. Am-Base Gorp., 337 F.3d 237 (2d Cir. 2003) (new-trial standard: miscarriage of justice requires serious error)
- U.S. ex rel. Owen v. McMann, 435 F.2d 813 (2d Cir. 1970) (extraneous information presumptively prejudicial; harmless-error analysis guidance)
- United States v. Weiss, 752 F.2d 777 (2d Cir. 1985) (demonstrates how to assess prejudice from extrinsic materials)
- Simon v. Kuhlman, 549 F. Supp. 1202 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (inside-jury-room experiments evaluated for prejudice)
- Cusumano v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 75 A.D.2d 801 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1980) (comparing tone of summations and limits of improper argument)