Marshall v. Randall
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11781
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Marshall was arrested in Brooklyn on May 15, 2008 by Officers Randall, Burbridge, and Fox after a gun was discarded; Marshall was charged with possessing a loaded firearm.
- Criminal complaints and grand jury testimony led to Marshall’s indictment; Marshall was jailed for about four months before release in September 2008.
- Approximately eight months after release, Marshall’s case was dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
- Marshall sued Randall and Burbridge under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of a fair trial, contending the officers lied about seeing the gun.
- The officers provided conflicting statements about seeing Marshall with the gun; grand jury testimony was used for impeachment, and trial included limiting instructions.
- The district court admitted and the jury found Randall and Burbridge liable for all counts, awarding $95,000 to each.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grand jury testimony used under Rehberg | Marshall claims liability was based on grand jury testimony | Randall/Burbridge contend impeachment use is proper and not a basis for liability | Impeachment use permitted; not grounds for reversal; no new trial |
| Speedy trial instruction | Marshall argues the jury should know dismissal was speedy-trial based | District court instruction appropriately framed malicious prosecution elements | Instruction adequate; no basis for new trial |
| Recognition evidence exclusion | Randall/Burbridge claim door was opened to admission of recognition evidence | District court properly limited scope and issued curative instruction | Rulings not error; curative instruction mitigated prejudice; no new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012) (grand jury witness immunity; use of grand jury testimony for impeachment not itself actionable under §1983)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) (trial witness immunity principles)
- United States v. Downing, 297 F.3d 52 (2d Cir. 2002) (presumption of credibility; limiting instructions respected by jury)
- Manganiello v. City of New York, 612 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010) (probable cause and credibility considerations in indictments)
- Rogers v. City of Amsterdam, 303 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2002) (favorable termination in malicious prosecution under speedy-trial dismissal)
- Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) (impeachment exception to Miranda violations)