Wrongful Conviction Lawsuit Defense Blog : Wrongful Conviction Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Andrew M. Hale Law Firm

According to The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals In Limone v. US $1 Million Per Year "approach[es] the outermost boundary of what might be thought conscionable" and is "at the outer edge of the universe of permissible awards." 

The Court explained:

That leaves the naked claim of excessiveness (a claim that encompasses the government's charge that $1,000,000 per year is simply too rich).  This question is not free from doubt. The district court's awards are considerably more munificent than the amounts that this court would have awarded in the first instance. In our view, the awards approach the outermost boundary of what might be thought conscionable. Cf. Baba-Ali v. State, 878 N.Y.S.2d 555, 568 n.7 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. 2009) (chronicling awards of lesser amounts).

Still and all, the awards are by no means unprecedented, and the "shock-the-conscience" test cannot be administered in a vacuum. What is shocking under one set of facts may be acceptable (even if only marginally so) under different circumstances. See United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 1993).

We are frank to say that, here, the awards for wrongful incarceration are high enough to be troubling. But when we take into account the severe emotional trauma inflicted upon the scapegoats, we cannot say with any firm conviction that those awards are grossly disproportionate to the injuries sustained. After all, some cases involving analogous factual scenarios have resulted in comparable damage awards. See, e.g., Thompson v. Connick, 553 F.3d 836, 865-66 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding jury award of $14,000,000 for 18 years of wrongful incarceration), vacated on other grounds by ___ F.3d ___, ___ (5th Cir. 2009) (en banc) [No. 07-30443, slip op. at 1]; Newsome v. McCabe, 319 F.3d 301, 302-03 (7th Cir. 2003) (involving award of $15,000,000 for 15 years of wrongful incarceration); White v. McKinley, No. 05-203, 2009 WL 813001, at *22 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 26, 2009) (upholding jury award of $14,000,000 in compensatory damages for 5 ½ years of wrongful incarceration); Sarsfield v. City of Marlborough, No. 03-10319, 2006 WL 2850359, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 4, 2006) (reflecting judicial award of more than $13,000,000 for 9 ½ years of wrongful incarceration). Consequently, we conclude that the district court's awards must stand.

In concluding that the awards in this case fall short of shocking the conscience, we think it important to make clear that the $1,000,000 annuity selected by the district court as the baseline for its calculation should not be understood as a carob seed for measuring the harm caused by wrongful incarceration generally. Applying a literal reading of the statement in Limone IV that "wrongfully imprisoned plaintiffs were entitled to compensation of at least $1 million per year of imprisonment," 497 F. Supp. 2d at 243 (emphasis supplied), one district court recently has treated the $1,000,000 per year baseline as a floor for damages arising out of wrongful incarceration. See Smith v. City of Oakland, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1217, 1242-43 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (citing Limone IV). We regard that characterization as unfortunate. As we have emphasized, the district court's awards are at the outer edge of the universe of permissible awards and survive scrutiny, though barely, only because of the deferential nature of the standard of review and the unique circumstances of the case.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Associated Press is reporting"

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a $102 million judgment against the government for withholding evidence that could have cleared four men who spent decades in prison — including two who died there — for a murder they didn't commit.

Joseph Salvati, Peter Limone and the families of Henry Tameleo and Louis Greco sued the federal government for malicious prosecution after U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled in July 2007 that Boston FBI agents withheld evidence they knew could prove the men weren't involved in the 1965 killing of Edward "Teddy" Deegan, a small-time hoodlum who was shot in an alley. "While we reject its finding that the government is liable for malicious prosecution, we uphold the court's alternate finding that the government is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress," the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on Thursday. "We conclude that the awards, though high, are not so grossly disproportionate to the harm sustained as to either shock our collective conscience or raise the specter of a miscarriage of justice."

A U.S. Department of Justice spokesman said the agency would only comment after studying the ruling. Attorneys for some of the men, however, were not restrained in their reaction. "It's a good day for civil rights, and I hope that the FBI will be able to put this sordid chapter in their history behind them and redeem themselves to be an institution that they once were," said Juliane Balliro, one of the lawyers representing Limone, Tameleo and their families. Balliro said the quick ruling has left the two men and their families ecstatic. Attorneys for Salvati and Greco did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment. The district court judge said FBI agents were trying to protect informants when they encouraged a witness to lie, then withheld evidence they knew could prove Limone and the three other men weren't involved in the Deegan killing.

She said Boston FBI agents knew mob hitman Joseph "The Animal" Barboza lied when he named Limone, Salvati, Tameleo and Greco as the killers. She said the FBI considered the four "collateral damage" in its war against the Mafia, the bureau's top priority in the 1960s. Tameleo and Greco died behind bars, while Salvati and Limone spent three decades in prison before they were exonerated in 2001.

A state judge found two Boston FBI agents had allowed Barboza to frame the men because Barboza and his friend Vincent "Jimmy" Flemmi, one of Deegan's killers, were FBI informants who provided evidence in the agency's highly publicized war against La Cosa Nostra. "This case exemplifies a situation in which the end did not justify the government's use of very unattractive means," the appeals court said Thursday. "In its zeal to accomplish a worthwhile objective (stamping out organized crime), the FBI stooped too low."

The appeals court said the district court used a permissible methodology in computing damages. The district court judge had awarded $26 million of the $101.7 million judgment to Limone, who served 33 years in prison. Greco's estate gets $28 million, Salvati gets $29 million and Tameleo's estate gets $13 million; the men's wives, ex-wives and children get the rest of the money. Limone and Salvati were exonerated after FBI memos dating back to the Deegan case surfaced.
 

Just to note.....

That comes out to $1M a year per person they were incarcerated.  Is that reasonable? .... more to follow on this...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held the following in Arizona v. Gant:  Holding: Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Download file

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Michael Evans has lost in his final bid for a new trial. Evans sued ten former Chicago police officers claiming they framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans had spent 27 years in prison before being released based on new DNA results. A federal court jury rejected his claims and found in favor of the retired police officers. Evans appealed to the Seventh Circuit and lost there too. Evans then filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the Seventh Circuit. That petition has now been denied as well. The retired police officers were represented by Benna Solomon, Myriam Kasper and Jennifer Notz during the appellate proceedings. Andrew M. Hale was lead counsel for the retired police officers at trial in the Northern District of Illinois before the Honorable David Coar. Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy represented Evans at trial and on appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a verdict in favor of the City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers and against Michael Evans, thereby denying Evans a new trial. Evans had filed suit seeking $60 million claiming the officers framed him for the rape and murder of nine-year old Lisa Cabassa in 1976. In August 2006, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the officers and City of Chicago, finding there to be no police misconduct. On appeal, Evans was seeking a new trial. In a 2-1 decision, the Seventh Circuit held that Evans received a fair trial and was not entitled to a new trial. At trial, the police officers were represented by attorneys Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen, Kevin Horan and John Rock of Rock Fusco, LLC. On appeal, the police officers were represented by Benna Ruth Solomon, Jenny Notz and Myriam Kasper, attorneys with the Corporation Counsel's appellate group. Evans was represented at trial and on appeal by Jon Loevy of Loevy & Loevy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a published opinion in In Re City of Chicago, No. 07-2608,  the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its prior orders sanctioning Prince Foryoh for making false statements on his application for in forma pauperis ("IFP") status. The prior orders barred Foryoh from conducting any federal litigation until all of his outstanding fees and costs, in all of his cases had been paid. The appeal arose after the district courts in Foryoh's pending cases determined that they would allow Foryoh to litigate his pending cases notwithstanding the court's orders. When the defendants objected, the district court judges referred the matter to the Executive Committee, which issued orders stating that barring Foryoh from proceeding would raise due process concerns and prejudice the defendants, since the cases would have to be stayed until Foryoh could pay. On the City's motion, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its prior sanctions. The court rejected the view that the sanctions posed any constitutional problem, and described the sanction as "modest." The court emphasized that Foryoh had filed frivolous lawsuits and attempted to defraud both the judiciary and his opponents. The court also rejected the idea that Foryoh's cases would have to be stayed, stating that Foryoh must meet the normal schedule for civil litigation, and that if he fails to do so, his suits must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The court did clarify that once Foryoh pays what he owes, he is entitled to have the order lifted immediately. Avi Kamionski handled the case in the district court and Myriam Kasper handled the appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Evan Zimmerman, who served three years in prison for a murder conviction that was later overturned, has died of cancer at the age of 61. Zimmerman had been convicted of strangling his ex-girlfriend Kathleen Thomson in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. After being released from prison, Zimmerman filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming he had been framed by the police. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the the police officers and the City of Eau Claire. Zimmerman then appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was heard in April 2007. On July 1, 2007,  prior to the Seventh Circuit rendering a decision, Zimmerman died of cancer.  Zimmerman's attorneys have now dismissed their Seventh Circuit Appeal. Zimmerman was represented by Jon Loevy of the law firm of Loevy & Loevy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The City of Chicago and ten former Chicago police officers have filed their response to Michael Evans' Seventh Circuit appeal. In August 2006, a federal court jury found in favor of the City of Chicago and the police officer defendants, rejecting Evans' claim that he had been framed for the rape and murder of Lisa Cabassa back in 1976. Evans spent 27 years in prison before being released in 2003 when DNA found on a rectal swab did not match Evans. An eyewitness, Judith Januszewski, testified that she saw Evans and his friend Paul Terry abducting Lisa Cabassa on the evening she disappeared. In their appellate brief, the defendants argued that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing testimony by police officers who fully complied with discovery. The defendants also argued that Evans' failure to ask the district court for additional time to conduct discovery waived any claim of prejudice. For example, the defendants' brief states "Tellingly, the primary relief Evans seeks is a remand to 'provide Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to take fact and expert discovery. Evans never sought this relief from the district court, although the officers suggested it. Evans wanted to go to trial as quickly as possible. Evans apparently now regrets this strategy, but his gamesmanship should not be rewarded with relief he never sought below. Indeed, because Evans never asked the district court for more time for discovery, this argument is waived." (Defendants' brief at p. 38). Defendants are represented on appeal by Benna Ruth  Solomon (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Myriam Zreczny Kasper (Chief Assistant Corporation Counsel), and Jane Elinor Notz (Assistant Corporation Counsel). Evans is represented on appeal by Jon Loevy, of Loevy & Loevy, who was also Evans' lead trial counsel. At trial, the defendants were represented by Andrew Hale, Eileen Rosen and John Rock from Rock Fusco, LLC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks