Rasanen v. Brown
723 F.3d 325
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff sues Trooper Brown under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence for deadly shooting during a warrant-supported search in 2002; at trial the only remaining claim was excessive force.
- District court previously granted summary judgment on excessive force against all but Brown and Etherton; Etherton’s claim was dismissed and negligence claims were dismissed as a matter of law.
- Jury trial commenced April 5, 2011; after lengthy deliberations, Brown was found not liable on the excessive force claim by verdict in Brown’s favor on May 6, 2011.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial under Rule 59 for several reasons, including jury-instruction flaws; the district court denied the motion on January 23, 2012.
- Rasanen appeals, arguing the jury instructions failed to provide Garner/O’Bert-based justifications for deadly force, among other points; the panel vacates and remands for new trial.
- Key factual context includes Brown’s at-close-quarters shooting of an unarmed Rasanen at point-blank range during a basement-bedroom encounter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garner/O’Bert deadly-force justification was required | Garner/O’Bert instruction required | Not required; Scott Terranova control | Garner/O’Bert instruction required; plain error found |
| Whether the district court’s jury instructions fairly directed the issue of reasonableness | Charge diluted Garner/O’Bert standard | Charge adequate; risk of prejudice; no error | Court erred by not giving Garner/O’Bert-based guidance; plain error |
| Whether preservation and plain-error review cure or excuse the error | Objection preserved via record and conference discussions | No proper preservation; plain-error standard applies | Preservation failed; but plain-error review still found error |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights and trial fairness | Error affected central issue of excessive force | No prejudice; jury could still decide under revised framework | Plain error affected trial integrity; vacate and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (deadly force allowed when suspect poses threat; justification standard)
- O’Bert ex rel. Estate of O’Bert v. Vargo, 331 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2003) (probable cause required for deadly force against unarmed suspect)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (U.S. 2007) (deadly force context not per se requiring Garner instruction; focus on reasonableness)
- Terranova v. New York, 676 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 2012) (Garner/O’Bert instruction not always required; distinguishes deadly-force contexts)
- Jarvis v. Ford Motor Co., 283 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2002) (waiver and fundamental/plain error standards in civil sentencing)
- SCS Communications, Inc. v. Herrick Co., 360 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2004) (plain-error standard and trial integrity considerations)
- Lavin-McEleney v. Marist College, 239 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2001) (plain-error review framework and standards)
- United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (plain-error review standards in criminal context informing civil review)