Samuel Tito Williams v. The City of New York
508 F.2d 356
2d Cir.
1974
Check Treatment

*3 product this confession coer of by jury cion police, found, as a ingredient necessary of its ultimate finding guilt, of his confession was voluntary. pursued rights ap He his through peal courts, the New York state City Burstein, Bernard New York People Williams, v. 298 N.Y. 83 N. Burke, Corp. (Adrian Counsel The P. (1949), petitioned for, E.2d 698 and and City Sheridan, York, New L. Kevin granted by Supreme certiorari City, counsel), York New defend- (though only sentence), as to his ant-appellant. York, v. New Williams 337 U.S. City Harry R. York Schwartz, New (1949), S.Ct. L.Ed. (Harry Lipsig Joseph Napoli, and P. H. no avail. After his death sentence—one counsel), plain- City, of New York imposed by jury the court after a recom tiff-appellee. imprisonment mendation life —was commuted to a term life SMITH, Governor Before TIMBERS GURF Dewey, sought persistently Williams EIN,* Judges. Circuit upset the conviction available state Judge: Following SMITH, and federal J. JOSEPH Circuit collateral means. Supreme the ing Court’s decisions culminat City appeals York The of New from a Haynes Washington, judgment in the entered United States 83 S.Ct. 10 L.Ed.2d 513 Court for the Southern District District (1963), decisions which broadened the Carter, Judge, York, L. Robert concept enlarged of involuntariness and assessing $40,000 in com- a verdict on responsibility the court’s to insure that damages pensatory $80,000 voluntary is confession before it is ad for the evidence, mitted into Williams was prosecution malicious granted relief appeal this court on denied, opin- Williams. The court from a petition denial of his for writ ion filed the Southern District corpus. of habeas United ex rel. States 14, 1973, York on November Fay, (2d Williams F.2d Cir. City’s motion to set aside the verdict. diversity 1963), based denied, Jurisdiction was citizenship, cert. 376 U.S. (1964). Subsequent For rea- 28 U.S.C. 1332. § ultimate below, favor, his affirm the sons discussed Williams commenced the suit presently award of and set court, before the alleging that City had, granted. relief through aside agents (the its po- * argument, Judge At lengthy history time of oral Gur- is set case Judge opinion, fein was a greater United States District our forth in detail earlier York, sitting the Southern Fay, District of New ex rel. United States by designation. denied, 1963), F.2d cert. 65-67 Cir. (1964). 376 U.S. 915 conclusive maliciously prosecuted him form of rebuttable lice), probable con- to a present plaintiff viction appellant contends that Williams’ instance, success on court of first though ultimately conviction, upset, bars notwithstanding. appeal this malicious under action Moreover, New York’s law. common arguing that Williams’ suit in- contends the suit must fail for necessarily fails, characterizes proof sufficient of a basic element conclusively the New York cases action, the cause of lack of equating a favorable final Alternatively, appellant cause. al- level with the trial cause to possible validity lows for the the com- prosecute. The federal rule in this cir pensatory damage award find- and the cuit indeed one of conclusive effect. ing prosecution of malicious Dacey Lawyers’ County v. New York predicated, it is but attacks the Ass’n, (2 F.2d n. 12 Cir. *4 grounds: independent relief on it 1969), 929, denied, cert. 90 398 U.S. S. granted pursuant was to an erroneous (grant (1970) 1819, Ct. L.Ed.2d 26 92 charge by the court of law Salvage appeal); injunction reversed on and was not warranted a matter of Corp. Corp., v. 104 Acme Tank Process proof presented law on the basis denied, (2d Cir.), 308 105, cert. 107 F.2d at trial. 131, 501 599, L.Ed. 84 S.Ct. 60 U.S. (grant injunction reversed (1939) 1. AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION law, common appeal). The New York PROBABLE CAUSE governs however, substantive such ingredients The essential aof action, diversity Erie R. in this matters prosecution malicious action are malice 64, S.Ct. Tompkins, 58 304 U.S. R. v. pursuing, probable and lack of cause (1938), a con accords 817, 518 82 L.Ed. pursue present plaintiff’s to prosecu ultimately only upset force of viction regard proba tion. With to the issue of probable cause. prima evidence of facie case, cause, ble focus the test 32, Solotaroff, App.Div. 75 v. 273 Laster objective subjective: is both 1947).2 (1st Dept. 360 N.Y.S.2d giving A an action for malicious thus correct court was plaintiff prosecution opportunity cannot make a case of out to overcome probable cause, prose suspicious probable however cause plaintiff’s guilt, arising circumstances from his conviction. cute he plaintiff knew or believed that was City York, v. guilty. Camini to not probable The existence of 826, N.Y.S.2d requires A.D.2d 269 25 cause the honest and reason- aff’d, Dept. 1966), N.Y.2d 19 829 able belief of the defendant who had (1967), establish proceedings complained instituted the of, required proof nature of actually es the and if he had no belief presumption: overcome this plaintiff’s guilt, he estab- probable lish cause. prima conviction establishes [A] facie prosecution probable un- cause for the Harper James, Jr., F. F.& The Law prose- the malicious less (1956). [in of Torts 4.5 at 312-13 theOn § can that the objective cution show side, weight action] given courts have Slaughter-House Smith, contrary Co. v. Butchers’ Union Xot Burt leading (1905), 30 L.Ed. 614 Xew S.Ct. N.Y. N.E. (1887), Appeals the New York did Court and cited York case on malicious s expres preference against not City position for or on the its position. Smith, supra, although Burt v. 181 N.Y. 1 Burt v. For cause issue. 6-7, Supreme at N.E. itself in Burt Smith decision Smith referred to only prelimi given volved giving effect to be effect on conclusive nary injunction. judgment, Live Stock final Crescent by fraud, perjury, ment was obtained inten- equivalent to which is of others conspiracy or other undue means. Costich misconduct.” tional Rochester, supra, App.Div. us, plainly it was In the case before at 837. N.Y.S. 835 jury’s province find “un- within the strong evidence of due means” punitive dam of the If the focus part police in ob- coercion on indi ages were the to Williams awardéd taining This is confession. allegedly policemen wrenched who vidual particularly so because of the concurrent vi him threats from a confession support a reasonable lack evidence to olence, elucidated then the standard was the officers belief malice, essentially above, would one brought they guilty him to first when undoubtedly But this award be met. po- Indeed, if the dubious the station. employer, against the officers’ made present practices which secured the lice plaintiff’s York, offi and not the conviction 1948 do And while vicarious themselves. cers means,” qualify it is dif- as “undue then liability compensatory re imagine might. ficult to what acting quires that the servant employ jury’s correctly upheld the of his within the broad outlines The court damages. finding ment, punitive prosecution. The are assessed of malicious greater employer $40,000 with far assessment dependent reluctance. upheld. must be un and deterrent *5 damages punitive derpinnings of a II. DAMAGES PUNITIVE divergence explain this in vicari award damages, compensatory liability Unlike the doctrine. For whereas ous damages punish punitive damages purpose are assessed —com wrongdoer pensation accomplished than restore the rather of the victim—is punitive Accompanying payment victim. the master whether comes from signif greater perhaps servant, misbehaving pu function—and icance, or that of his damages wrong Consol. punish Stevenson Hearst nitive cf. —to 902, Publications, Inc., n. 2 214 F.2d 908 doer and deter him and others from du (2d Cir.), denied, 874, plicating 75 cert. 348 U.S. his not. misconduct—is Unless (1954) 110, a de employer guilty 688 S.Ct. 99 L.Ed. is himself of some —is one, punitive (or terrent for the award of omission) tortious act because his damages repetition misbehaved, deter employee pun is intended to an has award par by deterring both the ishing employer of the tortious conduct him adjudged (i.e., liable ticular and others act likewise situated to might tempted to imitate employers) others who be other at all. makes no sense Sheldon, See, his conduct. Walker v. 10 Bloomingdale, 171 In Craven v. 490, 404, 488, N.Y.2d 447-448, 64 N.E. N.Y. City (1961); N.E.2d 497 Costich (1902), Appeals the New York Court of Rochester, App.Div. 623, puni proof outlined the needed to obtain 1902). (4th Dept. N.Y.S. damages against a master whose tive degree needed to misconduct illegal servant had caused the arrest of against punitive damages an award Gray customer, quoting Justice Mr. variously municipality been defined has Michigan Ry. Pren Lake Shore & S. by general matter of As a courts. tice, 101, 107-108, 111, 147 U.S. S.Ct. law, however, New York (1893) part as fol 37 L.Ed. 97 intentional, standard calls for “the wan lows: ton, willful or malicious commission Exemplary damages, being illegal per punitive or some act or . such discharge awarded, by way compensation or verse obstinate failure sufferer, by punish- duty way to the some as warrants the offender, warning rights ment of the and as reckless indifference assump- mistaken proceeded against others, have be awarded can underlings’ would malice that of- tion participated in the has one who deficiency evidence any direct though therefore, supply principal, A fense. complicity in the tor- superiors’ compensation of the to make liable of course evi- offer failure His agent, acts.4 by tious within injuries his done for involvement, there- higher level dence employment, scope cannot of his sup- inadequate fore, requires to find us exemplary or held liable be against damages punitive port for damages, merely reason law. matter of as a intent oppressive malicious or wanton, agent. This is part of the on the established Even had clearly shown of this prima moreover, fa complicity, such court in the case of The Amiable Nan- damages still punitive would cie case cy, 546,] Wheaton, [, 4 [16 of the required more. Vindication have * * * L.Ed. No doubt a cor- 456]. damage punitive of a rationale deterrent poration, person, may like a natural be simply un be assumed could not award exemplary held liable ap is, the That der the circumstances. proximately agent for the act anof with- 25-year interval between scope employment, pro- of his possible time acts and tortious intent, necessary vided the criminal coupled deterrence the added award imposition warrant of such dam- provided repeating conduct such from brought corpora- ages, is home to the toughening of Supreme ad Court’s (Caldwell Co., v. N.J. tion. Steamboat standards, for evidence missibility call 282; 47 N.Y. Bell v. Midland Rail- practices have contin this sort 287; way 10 C.B. [N.S.] S.C. proof City. Without ued New York 293.) Law Times [N.S.] any longer requires medicine, be we would Taylor, of deterrent also, v. Lord & 236 kind Walker See Similarly, (1st grant 111, 114, it. App.Div. remiss to N.Y.S. engage speculation Minimally, therefore, such Dept. 1932). circumstances in these award to collect justi *6 would be of New York City, the he must show the part, fied, its deterrent authority in or position whole persons in those systems. impact cities’ City’s other police department in some excluding possibility under the way authorized, Without or the ratified fostered punitive York law that complained acts of. But the record against municipality, may attempt by be assessed the the trial below reveals no difficulty recognize we must plaintiff to this nexus between establish proving and to such entitlement conduct is at issue the officers whose in even this case superiors. plaintiff’s failure Furthermore, and their necessary proof. high approximate to evidence about involvement Cf. 950, Bush, N.Y. 27 A.D.2d er-ups Eifert wrongdoing, elic in evidence (2d 1967), aff’d, Dept. 22 N.Y. S.2d 368 plaintiff ited on cross-examina from the 372, 681, N.E.2d tion, 2d of such indicates lack (1968); of Roches- appears Costich plaintiff involvement.3 The damages by l!,v The summation on Mr. Walls : counsel, transcript 171-72, any superior at witnesses in Q. Were there officers proof. this precinct you basic failure any in Counsel elabo- house at time that aware, upon employment rates of, by client’s lost were I mean lieutenant opportunities suffering, pain sergeant. and and or a didn’t, : I any part no makes sir, no mention whatsoever The none [sic] by department superiors engendering they sign until after made the confes- me this loss. sion. they brought, big Then men some there. That is all I know. Transcript at 90. ter, supra, 632, App.Div. at suffered the defendant as a result of error, remediability this and 73 N.Y.S. 841-842. of this below, error without a new trial combine punitive Review the dam justify overlooking counsel’s failure age award, however, procedural faces a timely object in this instance. The jury’s hurdle. damages The award punitive damages award of must be re- rested er versed. roneous statement of the law jury’s finding The trial court. For the court in its in established the basic elements of a mali- jury structions to the failed to indicate cious adequate action has City, the need to find that rather evidence introduced at agents alone, culpable than its Compensatory damages trial. were thus any wrongdoing.5 This was error appropriate. Since Williams did not of- charge. But reversal on basis nor any fer complicity evidence of mally timely objection requires to the al City in the officers, tortious acts of the legedly defective instruction the dis hand, on the other and conditions have court, ap trict and Fed.R.Civ.P. changed so elapsed, time pellant City neglected object damage may award not be allowed punitive damages charge. to stand. standards, Under Affirmed as to dam- cognizance may this court take ages, reversed damages. as to error, though objection timely court’s party. No costs to either made, “plain may not if it is re On Rehearing Petition for miscarriage justice.” in a sult Mc Dionne, Namara v. 298 F.2d PER CURIAM: (2d 1962). plain Relief under this Cir. petitions of New York granted error doctrine not be cas rehearing court for ually. the alternative Troupe Chicago, Bay D. & G. rehearing en banc our recent decision (2d Transit 1956). 234 F.2d Cir. v. City in Williams York, However, consideration of error (2d Cir. F.2d Nov. 1974). properly raised under the rule is City’s sole contention is that exceptional warranted this court cases in the in application erred in its justice, terests of New York law. Ferrara v. Sheraton disagree We McAlpin deny pe- Corp., therefore 311 F.2d 294 Cir. rehearing. 1962); tition States, Johnson v. United cf. 189, 200, 63 S.Ct. 87 L.Ed. 704 upheld Williams we the district (1943); and the demonstrable deviation entry court’s compensa- *7 of the court’s instruction here from the tory damages on based Williams’ mali- appropriate standard, the serious harm prosecution by cious City’s agents, the you may punitive rising your In addition him allow discretion as the allowance to damages. damages Punitive are allowed to of for the amount punish a defendant for you his malicious or such if decide to allow. reckless act thus deter others from to There no exact rule to is which deter- commissions of like punitive, damages. offenses. mine the amount plaintiff you To find a verdict the you punitive damages The amount fix as previously stated, must as I find that the particular need bear no ratio or relation- maliciously defendant acted but that ship you compen- to the amount award as require you plain- does not that satory award the damages. punitive damages. tiff may you You fix such an amount as find you degree If find that the defendant’s your sound and discretion your malice recklessness warrants you you all based on the facts before that you doing plaintiff so award the punish feel will serve to the damages, you but further find that like deter others from the commission of a mistakenly, good the defendant offense. faith, probable you believed cause must Transcript at 181-182. consideration fact into in exer- take that Ultimately, however, reversed, however, the volun- police; under we the damages against prevailing tariness standards award of police practices stating City. these of 1941 were deter- In law in regarding mined violative Caminito’s constitu- New York given the effect to be rights. ultimately upset, tional United States ex rel. a Cam- conviction (2d Murphy, quoted inito v. F.2d 698 Cir. court York, Caminito v. 1955). finding probable In cause 25 A.D.2d 269 N.Y.S.2d aff’d, prosecution, Dept. 1966), Caminito’s N.Y. court review- ing appeal pros- on Caminito’s malicious 2d 228 N.E.2d 396 (1967): ecution claim this refused to correlate prosecution constitutional defect prima conviction establishes [A] facie with “undue means.” probable un- cause for City’s contention that this court prose- less the malicious [in required was to do the same in Williams cution can show that the action] overlooks a critical distinction by fraud, between perjury,

ment was obtained allegations physi- the two cases: The conspiracy or other undue means. brutality cal to elicit confession which Williams, supra. Applying stand- this are abundant Williams are absent Williams, to ard the circumstances in significance Caminito. The dis- plainly concluded that was “it within the upon meaning tinction rests of “un- jury’s province find ‘undue means’ due means” as that term is used in the strong evidence coercion on the rebutting presumption context part obtaining of the probable prosecute. cause petition confession.” Id. In now argues court, general, before the that In this term addresses holding any pressures brought is erroneous because Cami- not on a bear York, supra, nito v. in which guilt criminal defendant to confess his Appellate only found on Division sum- but those indicative of a belief on mary judgment prosecution’s part cause the defend prosecution existed, guilty. distin- ant be is not “Undue means” thus is guished essentially on its from variety facts Williams. spe of fraud. More cific for this construction de custody, Cami- being into taken After from prin rives two sources. One is the of- interrogated by six five or nito ciple ejus of construction denominated cell hours, in a locked for five ficers generis: dem court Caminito bench a wooden says respite, and, seven-hour after recline arising from a conviction re questioning subjected to continuous butted where conviction is secured con- addition, Caminito anew. by “fraud, perjury, conspiracy or other masquerad- detectives with three fronted means”; undue since three terms They the crime. ing witnesses preceding “undue means” each involve con- him to pressures on brought further perpetrate intent to a fraud identifying as the him guilt his fess by convicting person, court an innocent Finally, 27 holdup car. driver generic the final and most term the signed arrest, Caminito after hours *8 sensibly four would be most read a a confession. Secondly, similar vein. other courts’ cir trial at Despite disclosure close association of “un “fraud” and confession, surrounding the pos due means” in their discussion of cumstances de guilty first found sible factors to rebut was cause Caminito af judgment was gloss gree and counsels on the for murder Caminito App. Caminito, 265 People See, g., McElroy mulation. e. v. The firmed. Dept. 1019 Co., N.Y.S.2d 38 Catholic Press 254 Ill. N.E. 98 Div. Bonino, nom., People (1912) ; Pig 1942), sub 527 La aff’d v. National Chance (1943). N.E.2d ments & Chemical 104 S.W.2d 693 291 N.Y. Mo.1937); (St. Appeals, Louis Ct. Inc., Super Service, Miss. Vonder Donn and Barbara Brooks v. 833, VonderAHE Plaintiffs-Appellants, Ahe, (1938); v. Win Moore So. (1935). field, 767, 178 S.E. 605 207 N.C. particularly so view This is Roy al., H. HOWLAND et Defendants dupli formulation’s essential Appellees. Caminito See, hornbook law. of standard cation No. 71-1982. Cooley, g., 1 Torts at 397- T. e. § Appeals, United States Court of 1932); (4th Haggard ed. 3'Re- ed. Ninth Circuit. Torts of the Law of § statement Nov. (1938). Rehearing Denied Feb. means,” this view “undue Under manifest crucial and Williams Caminito Ap- before the The facts differences.

pellate revealed Division Caminito practices not demonstrative frame an in-

court’s view of an intent to Thus, persistent inter-

nocent man. rogation and mock identifications practices not deviant from

be seen as

prevailing prosecutorial norms as and prove an intent

consistent with guilt.

guilty man’s As the Caminito

court stated: years determination, after

A plaintiff’s constitutional

ment, violated, insufficient

rights were ma- an action

expose proceeding prosecution for licious properly conducted which then-existing under law.

State N.Y.S.2d A.D.2d 848 Williams, added). (emphasis at 829 brutality physical hand, the other on alleged by the apparently believed prosecution case jury in the malicious accepted departure from a marked probable manifestation

practices allow Not to intent.

of fraudulent these means” based “undue reading all con- amount would

facts concluding Our term. out tent opinion in our issue on this statement repetition here:

bears police practices Indeed, dubious plaintiff’s present secured the qualify in 1948 do conviction means,” it is difficult then “undue might. imagine what *9 supra.

Williams, rehearing denied. petition