1

0 8
- 5 9 3 7
- cv C a m e ro n v . C i t y

o f N e w Y o rk 1 UN I T E D S T A T E S CO UR T OF AP P E ALS 2 F O R TH E SEC O N D C IR C U IT 3

____________________________________ 4 A ugus t T erm , 2009 5 (A

rg u e d : S e p t e m

b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 D e c i d e d : M arc h 1 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) 6 Do cketNo
. 08-5937- cv 7

____________________________________ 8 K ARE N CAME RON, S YLVI A HI GGE NBOT T OM, 9 P lai nti f f s -Appe lla nts , 10 – v . – 11 T HE CIT Y OF NEW YOR K , CA RM E N R AM OS, A

NGEL RIVE RA , SE RG E A NT 1 2 PETE R SO N , J O HND O ES, J A N E D O ES, 13 Def end an ts- A pp ell ees. 14

____________________________________ 1 5 B e f o re : C AL AB RESI , C AB R A N ES, a n d H AL L , Cir

cuit Judges
. 16

____________________________________ 1 7 P l a i

nt i f f s - Ap p e ll ant s Kar e n C ame r o n and S y l vi a H i g g e nbo t t o m

a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e rg r ant i

ng 1 8 j u d g me n

t t o D e f e n d an t s -A p p e ll e e s C arme n

R amo s , A

n g e l Ri v e ra , an d t h e C i t y o f N e wY o rk 19 f o ll o wi n g a j ury v erdi ct i n A ppell ees ’ f

av o r, i n A ppell an t s ’ s ui t f o r f al s e arrestand mali ci o us 2 0 p r o s e c ut i o n. T he U ni t e d S t at e s D i s t r i c t C o urt f

o rt he S o ut he rn D i s t r i c t o f N e wY o rk

( P a u l A. 21 Cro t t y , J

udge) deni ed A

ppell an t s ’ po s t -t ri al

mo t i o n s f

o r j udgmen

t as a m at t er o f l aw o r f o r a n ew 22 t ri al
. A l

t h o ugh we A F F IRMt h e deni al

o f t h e m o t i o n f o r j udgmen

t as a m at t er o f l aw, we 2 3 V A C A T E an d

RE M A N D th e c a s e f

or a n e wtr i a l i n li g h t of i m p r op e rop i

ni on te s ti mon y a s to 24 A

ppell ees ’ credi

b i li t y , as t o wh et h er A

ppell ees po s s es s ed pro b ab l e ca us e, an d as t o h o w v ari o us 25 ev i den ce s h o ul d b e i n t erpr et ed. 26

_________________________2 1 2 SC O TT A . KO REN B A U M(M i c h a e l

L . Sp i e g e l , of 3 couns el), N e wY o rk , N .Y ., f or P lai nti f f s -Appe lla nts . 4 5 JA N E L . G O RD O N , Se ni o r C o un s e l (Ed w ard F .X . H art , of 6 couns el), f or M i c h a e l A
. C ar d oz o, C or

p or ati on C oun s e l of 7 t h e C i t y o f N e wY o rk , N e wY o rk , N .Y ., f or Def end an ts8 A ppellees
. 9

_____________________________________ 1 0 C AL AB RESI , Cir cuit Judge : 11 On

J ul y 2, 2005, Of

f i cers Ca rmen Ra mo s and A

n gel Ri v era (al o n g wi

t h t h e C i t y o f New 1 2 Y o rk , “A

p p e ll e e s ” ) arre s t e d

Kare n C ame ron an d h e r m o t h e r, S y l v i a H i g g e n b o t t o m (t o g e t h e r, 1 3 “A

p p e ll an ts ” ) , an d c h ar g e d C ame r on w i th a v ar i e ty of s tate l awm

i s d e me an or s . A c c or d i

n g to 1 4 Ap p e ll e e s , t he y

d i d s o be c a u s e C ame r o n r e a c he d

i nt o t he i rs qu a d c ar , g r a bbe d R amo s ’s s hi

rt , and 1 5 w a s o t he rw i s e d i s o r d e r l y , and be c a u s e H i g g e nbo t t o m

i nt e r f e r e d w i t h t he i rarr e s t o f C ame r o n and 1 6 w a s a l s o d i s o rd e rl y . A p p e ll an t s c l a i m t h at t h e y d i d n o s u c h t h i n g s , an d t h at R amo s an d

Ri v e ra 1 7 kno w i

ng l y and ma li c i o u s l

y f a br i c at e d a s t o ry t o s u p p o rt t he arr e s t s o f

C ame r o n and 18 Hi gg en

b o t t o m an d t h e pr o secut i o n

o f Camer o n . No cr i

m i n al ch ar ges wer e f

i l ed ag ai n st 1 9 H i g g e n

b ott om , an d , a f

te ra c r i m i n a l tr i a l i n s tate c ourt, C ame r on

w a s a c qu i

tte d i n f u ll
. A p p e ll an ts 2 0 s u

b s e qu e n t l y s u e d i n t h e D i s t ri c t C o urt f

o r t h e South e rn

D i s t ri c t o f

N e wY o rk

(C rot t y , J. ) , s t at i

ng 2 1 c l a i

m s o f f a l s e arr e s t , and

i n C am e r o n’s c a s e o f

ma li c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n a s w e ll , a g a i ns t R amo s and 2 2 Rive r a , un d e rb o t h s t at e la wan d 4 2 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 8 3
. Ap p e llan t s a ls o b r o u g h

t c la ims o f res

pondeat 23 s uper ior

li a b i li t y an d s u p e rv i s o ry li a b i li t y un d e r Monell v. Department of Social Ser

vice s , 436 2 4 U .S. 6 5 8 (1 9 7 8 ), agai n s t t h e C i t y o f New Y o rk. 2 5 A f

te ra w e e k
- l on g tr i a l , a

j ury f oun d f orA p p e ll e e s on

a ll c oun ts . T h at v e r d i c t c an

n ot 2 6 s t and , ho w e ve r , be c a u s e t he j ury

w a s e xp o s e d

t o a s i g ni f i c ant amo unt o f

e rr o ne o u s l

y a dm i t t e d and3 1 hi g hl

y p r e j u d i c i a l t e s t i mo ny . T w o As s i s t ant D i s t r i c t At t o rne y s ( “AD As ” ) and a p o li c e li e ut e nant 2 w e r e a llo w e d

t o g iv e t h e ir

o p inio n s o n

R amo s ’ s an d

Riv e r a ’ s c r e d ib ili

t y, o n wh e t h e rp r o b a

b le 3 c a u s e e x i s te d

to arr e s t orc h ar g e th e A p p e ll an ts , an d on wh e th e rc e rta i

n e v i d e n c e s tr e n g th e n e d

or 4 w e ak e n e d

A p p e ll an ts ’ c a s e . T h e a dm

i s s i on of th e s e s tate me n

ts v i ol ate d

b e dr oc k p r i n c i p l e s of 5 e v id e n c e lawt h at p r o h ib it w it n e s s e s ( a ) fr o m v o u c h ing fo ro t h e rw it n e s s e s , ( b ) fr o m t e s t ifyi n g in 6 t h e fo rm o f le g a l c o n c lu s io n s , an d ( c ) fr o m in

t e r p r e t ing e v id e n c e t h at jur o r s c an e qu a lly w e ll 7 an a lyz e o n

t h e ir o wn . T h e s e e rr o r s w e r e n o t h armle s s , n o t le a s t b e c a u s e t h e y a llo w e d

o s t e n s ib ly 8 n eut ral

go v ern men t agen t s t o s peak di

rect l y t o t h e t wo mo s t h o t l

y co n t es t ed i s s ues i

n t h i s cas e: 9 R amo s ’ s an d

Riv e r a ’ s c r e d ib ili

t y, an d wh e t h e rR amo s an d

Riv e r a h a d p r o b a b le c a u s e fo rt h e ir 1 0 a c t io n s . A c c o r d ing ly, w e v a c at e t h e jury v e r d ic t an d r e man d fo ra n e wt r ia l. 1 1 A

p p e ll an t s ra i s e t h re e o t h e r i s s u e s , a s w e ll
. 1 2 F i

r s t, th e y ar g u e th at A

p p e ll e e s ’ a c c oun

t of e v e n ts w a s s qu ar e l

y c on tr a d i c te d b y a s e r i e s of 13 ph o t o graph s t aken b y a s ecuri t y cam era at t h e s cene. A

ppell an t s cl ai m t h at t h es e uni

m peac h ed 1 4 p i c t ur e s s o “bl at ant l y c o nt r a d i c t [ ] ” Ap p e ll e e s ’ s t o ry t hat Ap p e ll e e s ’ ve r s i o n o f f a c t s c o u l d no t be 15 acc ept ed b y

a reas o n ab l e j ury , and t h at A ppell an t s are t h eref

o re en t i t l ed t o j udgmen

t as a m at t er 1 6 o f

l aw . A ppell an t s ’ Br. 31. W e di s agree. T h e ph o t o graph s do n o t def i ni t i v el y rul e o ut ei

t h er 1 7 s i d e ’ s v e r s i on

of e v e n ts , an d h e n c e th e D i s tr i c t C ourt c orr e c tl y d e ni e d A p p e ll an ts ’ moti on

f or 18 j udgmen

t as a m at t er o f l aw. 19 A

ppell an t s ’ o t h er t wo cl ai

m s co n cern

t h e i n s t ruct i o n s gi

v en t o t h e j ury . T h ey

argue (a) 2 0 th at th e D i s tr i c t C ourt s h ou l d h av e i n s tru c te d th e j ury th at, u n d e rN e wY ork

l aw , th e of

f e n s e of 21 “ o b s t ruct i

n g go v ern

men t al adm i ni s t rat i o n , ” f

o r wh i ch Hi ggen b o t t o m was arr es t ed, r equi

res t h at 2 2 th e ob s tr

u c te d of f i c e r s b e e n g a g e d

i n a l aw f u l arr e s t, an d

( b ) th at A

p p e ll an ts ’ v e r s i on

of e v e n ts4 1 w ou l d

h av e a ll ow e d

a j ury to i n f e rth at R amos an d

Ri v e r a a c te d w i th ma li c e , e n

ti tl i n g th e m to a 2 puni

t i v e damages i

n st ruct i o n . Gi

v en t h at we ar e r eman di

n g f o ra n ew t r i al , we co n si dert h ese 3 ar g ume n

ts i n th e i n te r e s t of j u d i c i a l e c onom y , an d c onc l u d e th at A

p p e ll an ts ar e c orr e c t on

b oth 4 co un

t s . T o t h e ex

t en t t h es e i s s ues recur at t ri al o n remand, i n s t ruct i o n s s i

m i l ar t o t h o s e t h at 5 Ap p e ll ant s r e qu e s t e d s ho u l d t he r e f o r e be g i ve n. 6 B ACK GROUND 7 I . F ac tual

All e ga tions 8 B e c a

u s e A p p e ll an t s ’ e v i d e n t i ary c h a ll e n g e re qu i

re s u s t o re v i e w“ e v e ry

t h i n g . . . t h e j ury 9 co n s i dered o n

t h e i s s ue i

n ques t i o n , ” Hyne

s v . Co ug hli n , 79 F
. 3d 285, 291 (2d Ci r. 1996) 1 0 ( in

t e rn a l q u o t at io n mark s o mit t e d ) , it is u s e fu l t o lay o ut e a c h s id e ’ s c a s e in

s o me d e t a il. 11 A. App e l lant s’Ac c ount

of the I nc i de nt 12 C a m e r o na n d H ig g e nb o t t o m b o tht e s t ifie d a ttr ia l. A c c o r d ing t o th e m , o nth e m o r n ing o f J u ly 13 2, 20 05, H i gge nbo t t o m, Ca mer o n ’ s mo th e r , n o t i c e d th a tth e r i gh tf r o n tw h e e lo f

Ca mer o n ’ s c a rw a s up 14 o nth e si dew alk o utsi de th eir apartment

co m pl ex. S h e cal l ed C am ero nt o t el lh er th i s , th endro v e aw ay 15 to g et h er o w n car w as hed . C am er on l ef t h er ap ar tm ent to s ee the car, th en cal l ed 9 1 1 at 10 : 1 2 a.m . to 16 r e q u e s tap o li c e inc id e n tr e p o r t . A t1 0 :2 3 a . m . , s h e c a ll e d 9 1 1 a g a in t o fin d o u tw h e nth e p o li c e w o u ld 17 a r r i v e . Wh e nsh e sa w Ra mo s a n d Ri v e r a dr i v e by a n d st o p abl o c k

a w a y a t10 : 25 a . m. , sh e c a l l e d 9 11 18 a thir d tim e , to tel lthe of f i c e r s w her e s he w a s . T he of f i c e r s then m a d e a U
- tu r n and p a r ked b e hind 19 C am ero n ’s car. 20 R i vera l ef t the pol i ce ca r and insp ected C am er on ’s car . C am er on req u es ted an i nci d ent re p ort, 21 an d d i s cus s ed w h ath ad h app en ed to h er v eh i cl e. R i v era sai d h e w o ul d f i n d o ut i f h e co ul d p repare an 22 i nci d e nt re p ort , a nd w e nt b a c k to hi s p ol i c e ca r . A t thi s p oint, H i g g e nb ottom re tu r ned , p a r ked in f r ont5 1 o f Camero n ’s c ar , a n d w alk ed o v ert o Camero n . Th e po l i ce c armo v ed f o rw ar d a f

ew f ee ta n d R i v er a 2 ro l l ed d o w nth e pas s en ger-s i de w i n dow
. R am o s w as s i t t i n g i nth e pas s en ger s eat . C am ero nw alk ed 3 over to the p a s s e ng e r - s i d e w i nd ow and l e a ned f orw a r d to d i s c u s s the p os s ib i l i ty of g e tti ng an inci d e nt 4 re p ort. H er l ef

t h and w as b ehind her b ack, h ol d i ng tw o w hite s ho p p i ng b ag s ; she w as g es tur i ng w i th 5 h er ri ght

h an d, bu t , Cam ero nal l eges , h er h an d n ev er ent ered th e car o r t o uched R am o s . 6 R am o s th eny el l ed “g ety o ur h an ds o f f th e car” tw i ce an d to l d C am ero nth atshe w as u n der 7 arrest. C am ero nresp o n ded by t o s s i n g h er bag s t o th e gro und an d p utt i n g h er h an ds beh i n d h er back
. 8 S h e argu ed w i thth e o f f i cers ab o ut th e gro unds f o r h er arrest bef

o re su bm i t t i n g to h an dcu f f i n g, an d w as 9 p l a c e d in the p ol i c e ca r . R i ver a g r a b b e d at her l e g s , s o C a m e r on tr i e d to “ p u l lhi s hand s of f ” her ; s he 10 w as th ent ak eno ut o f th e po l i ce ca r f

o r th e h an dcu f

f s t o be adj us t ed. O ther than ar g u i ng ab ou t the 11 groun ds f

o r arrest an d tryi n g to t ak e R i v era’s h an ds o f f h er at th att i m e, C am ero nden i es i nany w ay 12 re s i s ting ar re s t. 13 H i g g e nb ottom s a i d that s he he a r d R a m os s a y “g e t y ou rhand s of

f of the ca r ” and s a w R a m os 14 an d R i v era arrest C am ero n . H i gg enbott o m th enw alk ed aro und th e po l i ce ca r, a n d R i v era pu s h ed h er 15 b a c k; oth e rthan thi s , H i g g e nb ottom d e ni e s any p hy s i c a lconta c t w i th ei ther of f i c e r . H i g g e nb ottom 16 turned aw ay

f ro m th e arrest t o go t o h er o w ncar, get h er cel lph o n e, an d cal l91 1. W h en 17 H i gge nbo t t o m r e tur n e d wi thh e rc e l lph o n e , Ra mo s s ai d “ call yo ur l awy

er i f yo u wan t t o , call yo ur 1 8 l awye r ” and

“d o yo uw ant t o g o w i

t h y o urg i r l f r i e nd ?” S h e th enarrested H i gg enbott o m . 19 B. App e l l e e s’Ac c ount of the I nc i de nt 20 R a m os and R i ver a al s o tes ti f i e d . T hey

cl a i m e d that, w hen they ar r i ved at the s c e ne, C a m e r on 21 w a s “u p s e t” and “l ou d ,” “l ooked l i ke a ho m e l e s s p e r s on,” and had “w hi te s tu f f ” or “ d r y s a l i va” ar ou nd 22 h er l ips . J .A. 202 , 281 -82
. S h e di d n o trequ est an in ci dent repo rt , but rath er w an t ed to k n o w w h at 23 t o w i n g ag en cy

h ad p ut h er car o nth e curb
. W h enC am ero napp ro ach ed th e w i n dow , Ri v era t o l d h erI n th e o n lin e ar r e s t f o r m Riv e r a f

ille d out, th e s ub s e qu e n t c o mplain t h e s ign e d, an d at Came r o n ’s c r imin al tr ial, 1 Ri v e ra t e s t i f

i e dt ha tC a m e ro n s tu c kb o t h ha nd s i n t he p o l i c e c a r. A tt ri a l , ho w e v e r, he s t a t e dt ha ts he o nl y p u to ne h and i n the v e h ic le . Ramo s te s ti f ie dthat C ame r o n re s te dhe r f o r e arms o n the c ar do o r , with b o th h ands in the c ar.
C ame r o n w o r k s as an inv e s ti g at iv e as s is ta n t f o r the D EA
. 2 6 1 that he cou l d f

i l lou t an i nci d e nt re p ort and as ked f or he rl i c e ns e and re g i s tr a ti on, at w hi c h p oint “s he 2 l o sti t . ” J
. A. 20 6. Ri v e r a a n d Ra mo s t e st i f i e d th a tCa mer o nw a s ge stur i n g wi tho n e o rbo thh a n ds 3 i ns i d e the vehi c l e . R a m os tol d C a m e r on tw i c e to g e t her hand s ou t of the ca r , a t w hi c h p oint C a m e r on 1 4 s a i d “ W ha t, a r e y ou g oi ng to a r r e s t m e ?” a nd g r a b b e d R a m os ’ s s hi r t. J
. A
. 3 2 5
. R a m os a nd R i ve r a l e ft 5 th e car t o arrest C am ero n , w h o w as “s trug gl i n g,” “f l ai l i n g h er arms ,” an d ref us i n g to be h an dcu f

f ed. 6 J
. A
. 2 2 5
. C a m e r o nth e no p e n e d th e b a c k d o o ro f th e p o li c e c a ra n d ju m p e d in; R a m o s a n d R ive r a d id 7 n o ta tfir s tn o t ic e th is b e c a u s e th e y w e r e d is tr a c t e d b y H ig g e nb o t t o m s c r e a m ing “ le a v e h e ra lon e , s h e is 8 a D EA a ge n t . ” Wh e nth e y c h e c k e d t o se e i f

Ca mer o nw a s se c ur e ly

h a n dc uf f e d, Ca mer o nk i c k e d, 2 9 pu n ch ed, an d s pat at th e o f f i cers, w h o rem o v ed h er f ro m th e car an d re-h an dcu f f ed h er. 10 A c c ord i ng to R a m os and R i ver a , H i g g e nb ottom w a s y e l l i ng and s c r e a m i ng b e hind them d u r i ng 11 th i s t i m e; R i v era “h ad to turn back t o M s . H i gg enbott o m o v er an d o v er agai nt o t el lh er t o stan d b ack ,” 12 t e l l i n g h e rth i s “ a bo utt e nt i mes . ” J
. A. 23 3- 35, 25 0- 51. Ot h e r w i se , Ra mo s a n d Ri v e r a t e st i f i e d, 13 H i gg enbott o m m ade n o co n t actw i thth e o f f i cers an d th ey

di d n o th av e any

v erbalexch an ge w i thh er 14 bef

o re th ey arrested h er. 15 C. P

hotographicEvidenc e 16 A s e c u r i ty ca m e r a re c ord e d the i nci d e nt f r om s om e d i s ta nce , ta king p hotog r a p hs at tw o-s e c ond 17 i nt er val s . In th e p ho to g ra p hs, C am er on can be s een l eani ng to w ar d th e w i ndow o f th e p ol i ce ca r, w i th 18 her l ef

t h and b ehind her b ack, h ol d i ng tw o s ho p p i ng b ag s . H er ri g ht h and cann ot

b e s een. Af

ter s i x to 19 t en

seco n ds inth i s po s i t i o n , Cam ero nstan ds up , t urns h er bo dy

aw ay f ro m th e po l i ce ca r, th ro w s h er 20 b a g s o nth e s id e w a lk, a n d p u t s h e rh a n d s b e h ind h e rb a c k
. R a m o s a n d R ive r a g e to u to f th e v e h ic le7 1 and ap p roach C am er on . F rom th i s p oint o n, i t app ear s as th oug h th e of f i cer s are int er acti ng w i th 2 C a m e r on i n s om e m a nner . B e y ond thi s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t, i f no t im p os s ib l e , to d e c ip her f r om the 3 p hotog r a p hi c f

ootag e ex a c tly

w hat i s hap p e ning . H i g g e nb ottom ap p e a r s to b e s ta nd i ng nea rthe 4 o f

f i ce rs un t i lCamero nh as e n t er ed th e po l i ce c arf o r th e f i rstt i me. Atso me po i n tth er ea f t er , 5 H i g g e nb ottom w a l ks aw a y f r om the p ol i c e ca r , i n the d i r e c ti on of her ow n ca r , a nd re tu r ns 6 a p p r ox i m a te ly

tw e nty s e c ond s l a te r . S he r e m a i ns nea rthe p ol i c e ca rand ca n b e s e e n s ta nd i ng nea rthe 7 of f i c e r s f or r ou g hly

thir ty s e c ond s after C a m e r on has ap p a r e ntly b e e n p u t in the p ol i c e ca rf or a s e c ond 8 t im e, af

t er w h i chth e o f

f i cers arres tH i gg enbott o m . 9 D
. P o s t-A r r es t Eve n ts 10 L i e u te nant N orm a n P e te r s on a r r i ved on the s c e ne a f

te rthe ar r e s ts . H e s p oke w i th R a m os and 11 R i ver a , w ho tol d him w hat ha d occ u r r e d . B a s e d on thei rinf orm a ti on, he d e te r m i ned that C a m e r on a nd 12 H ig g e nb o t t o m w e r e n o te li g ib le fo rs u m m o n s e s o rd e s k ap p e a r a n c e t ic k e t s , b u tw o u ld ins t e a d n e e d fu ll 13 arrest pro cess i n g. H e sp o k e w i thC am ero n , a n d f o und h er t o be “co h eren t ” an d “cal m an d p o l i t e.” 14 J .A. 341
. H e th ent o o k C am ero nt o th e stat i o nh o us e, an d an o th er o f f i cer bro ug h tH i gg enbott o m . 15 R i ver a al s o w e nt to the s ta ti onho u s e , w her e he com p l e te d the onl i ne b ooking p r oce s s f or 16 C a m e r o na n d Hi g g e nb o t t o m . I nh i s o n l i n e a r r e s tf o r m , h e c h a r g e d C a m e r o nwi thh a r r a s s m e n t , N. Y. 17 P en alLaw § 24 0.2 6, di s o rderl y co n du ct , i d. § 24 0.2 0, an d res i s t i n g arres t , i d. § 20 5.3 0. H e ch arged 18 H i gg enbott o m w i tho bs tructin g g o v ern m en t aladm i n i s trat i o n , i d. § 1 95 .05 , a n d d i s o rderl y co n du ct . 19 L a te rthat d a y , he m e t w i th A D A E l i z a b e th B r a nd on of the B r onx D i s tr i c t A ttor ney ’ s O f f i c e , w ho 20 prep ared a C ri m i n alC o urt C o m pl ain tch argi n g C am ero nw i thth o s e o f f en s es as w el las at t em pted 21 a s s a u l t in the thir d d e g r e e , N .Y . P e nalL a w § § 1 1 0 , 1 2 0 .0 0 . B a s e d on R i ver a ’ s inf

orm a ti on, B r a nd on 22 deci ded n o tt o pro s ecute H i gg enbott o m becaus e sh e di d n o tth i n k th e S t at e w o ul d b e abl e t o pro v e a 23 case agai n s th er.8 1 A c c ord i ng to B r a nd on, al lof the i nf orm a ti on i n the cr i m i nalcom p l a i nt that w a s f i l e d ca m e f

r om 2 Ri v e r a . Br a n do n ’ s n a me app e a r s n o w h e r e o nth e c o mp l a i n t ; r a th e r , i ts a y s th a t“ PO A N G E L RI V E RA 3
. . . s t a t e s th a t. . . T H E D E F E N D A N T C O M M IT T E D T H E O F F E N S E S ” c h a r g e d
. J
. A
. 6 1 7
. Itis 4 o n ly

si gned by

R i v era. Th e co m pl ain tstat es th atany f al s e stat em en t s m ade th ereinare pu n i s h abl e as 5 m i s dem ean o rs . The co m pl ain tal s o stat es th atR i v era w as “i n f o rm ed b y P O R AM O S , CA R M EN
. . . 6 th at , a s a resu l to f [C am ero n ’s ] act i o n s , P O R am o s exp eri en ced ann o y an ce an d al arm an d f ear f o r h er 7 phy s i calsaf

ety .” I d. R a m os s u b s e q u e ntly

s i g ned a s u p p ort i ng d e p os i ti on s ta ti ng that thi s inf orm a ti on 8 w as true. 9 T he c har g e s ag a i ns t C a m e r on w e r e ad j u d i c a te d in a b e nch tr i a lp r os e c u te d b y then- A D A I r e ne 10 Pan gi l i n a n . A tth e c l o se o f th i s c r i mi n a ltr i a l , th e j udge a c quit t e d Ca mer o no na l lc o un t s. 11 I I . T estim ony as to E xistence of Pro b ab l e C aus e and C red i b i l i ty o f R am os and R i vera 12 A t the tr i a lof A p p e l l a nts ’ s u b s e q u e nt ci vi ls u i t, A p p e l l e e s el i c i te d tes ti m ony as to the 13 cr ed ib i l i ty

o f R am os and R i vera, as to w heth er th ey h ad p rob ab l e cau s e to arr es t an d p ros ecu te 14 Came r o na n d Hi gge nbo t t o m, a n d a s t o w h e th e rc e r t a i ne v i de n c e str e n gth e n e d o rw e a k e n e d A ppe l l a n t s’ 15 c a s e . T hi s tes ti m ony ca m e throu g h thre e w i tnes s e s : A D A P a ng i l i nan, w ho w a s the tr i a lp r os e c u torf or 16 C a m e r on’s cr i m i naltri a l ; A D A B r a nd on, w ho p r e p a r e d the com p l a i nt f or R i ver a ; and L i e u te nant 17 Pet e r so n , th e sup e r i o ro f f i c e rw h o a r r i v e d a tth e sc e n e o f th e in c i de n ta f

t e rth e a r r e st s. 18 A. P angi l i nan’ s Te st i m ony 19 A p p e l l e e s ca l l e d P a ng i l i nan, w ho w a s an A D A f r om S e p te m b e r2 0 0 4 u nti lA p r i l2 0 0 8 . S he 20 t e s t ifie d t o th e c o n t e n ta n d t o n e o f C a m e r o n ’ s t a p e - r e c o r d e d 9 1 1 c a ll s , a n d t o C a m e r o n ’ s ap p e a r a n c e in 21 her ar r e s t b ooking p hoto, as nei ther the ta p e - r e c ord i ng s no rthe p hoto w e r e any l ong e rava i l a b l e . S he 22 a ls o t e s t ifie d th a tth e 9 1 1 c a ll s , th e b o o k ing p h o t o , a n d th e t im e - lap s e s e c u r ity c a m e r a p h o t o s a ll 23 “ c orr ob ora te d ” R a m os and R i ver a ’ s ac c ou nt, a nd that nothing on them l e d her to c ons i d e rd r op p i ng theWh i l e Ap p el l a n t s o b je ct ed t o B r a n d o n ’ s st a t em en tt h a tsh e deci d ed t o i n i t i a t e pr o cee d i n g s a g a i n stC a m er o n , t h ey 3 d id no t ob j e c t a g ai n a mo me n t l at e r w h e n s h e s ta te dthat s h e w o u ld no t hav e p r o s e c u te dwith o u t p r o b ab lec au s e . App e lle e s don o t, h o w e v e r , ar gu eth at App e llan ts w aiv e d an y ob j e c tio n to th at latte r c o mm e n t. 9 1 prosecu t i o n . J .A. 504 -05
. F urth erm o re, s h e sai d, th e su rv ei l l an ce ph o t o s “act ual ly stren gth en ed 2 [ C a m e r on’s ] p r os e c u ti on.” J .A . 5 0 4 . P a ng i l i nan a l s o tes ti f i e d ex te ns i vel y

ab ou t her com m u ni c a ti ons 3 w i th R i ver a and R a m os . S he te s ti f i e d that nothing R i ver a or R a m os s a i d l e d her to c ons i d e rd r op p i ng 4 the c a s e ; that s he ha d no re a s on to b e l i e ve a ny thing they

s a i d w a s inac c u r a te ; that they d i d no t 5 en co urag e h er t o co n t i nue th e pro s ecuti o no r h av e any ro l e intri alstrat egy ; an d th atshe an d h er 6 s up erv i s o rs , ra th er th anR i v era o r R am o s , deci ded w h eth er o r n o tt o co n t i nue C am ero n ’s pro s ecuti o n . 7 A p p e lla n t s o b

je c t e d t o n e a r ly e v e r y q u e s t io ninth e r e le v a n tp o r t io n s o f P a n g ilin a n ’ s t e s t im o ny. 8 B. Bran don’ s Te st i m ony 9 Ap pel l an t s cal l ed B ran don , pri m ari ly t o in qu i re abo ut th e pro cedu re f o r f i l i n g a cri m i n al 10 co m pl ain tan d to co n f i rm cert ainw ay s th atR i v era’s an d R am o s ’s acco unt s h ad ch an ged si n ce th e day 11 of

the ar r e s ts . O n cr os s ex a m i nati on, B r a nd on te s ti f i e d ov e rob

j e c ti on that s he d e c i d e d w hethe ror not 12 t o in i t i a t e pr o c e e din gs a ga i n stCa mer o n , a n d th a tsh e w o ul d n o t“ h a v e de c i de d t o pr o se c ut e M s. 13 Came r o ni f

[ sh e ] di d n o tbe l i e v e th e r e w a s pr o babl e c a use t o be l i e v e th a t[ Came r o n ] h a d c o mmi t t e d a 14 c r i me. ” J
. A. 27 2. 3 15 C. P e t e rson’ s Te st i m ony 16 A p p e l l a nts al s o ca l l e d P e te r s on, p r i m a r i ly “to r e f u te R a m os and R i ver a ’ s tes ti m ony conc e r ning 17 M s. Ca mer o n ’ s a l l e ge dly di sh e v e l e d appe a r a n c e a n d str a n ge be h a v i o r . ” A ppe l l a n t s’ Br
. 42
. On c r o ss, 18 Ap pel l ees el i ci t ed test i m o ny th at , a f t er sp eak i n g w i thR am o s an d R i v era, P et ersonth o ug h tth at 19 p rob ab l e cau s e ex i s ted to arr es t C am er on and had n o “r eas on

to d oub t the o f

f i cer s ’ ac cou nt

o f th e f acts 20 that d a y .” J .A . 3 5 3 . ( A p p e l l a nts d i d no t ob j e c t to thi s tes ti m ony .) H e al s o tes ti f i e d that he s a w the 21 se c ur i ty

c a mer a ph o t o s “ [ a ] l o n g t i me a f t e r ” th e a r r e st , a n d sa i d o v e ro bj e c t i o nth a tth e y di d n o tc h a n ge10 1 h i s o pi n i o nabo ut th e arrests. J .A. 359
. Ap pel l ees al s o ask ed P et ersona s eco n d tim e i f th ere w as 2 probab l e caus e t o arrest C am ero nf o r th e crim es s h e w as ch arged w i th , but th e D i s tri ctC o urt su s t ain ed 3 Ap pel l an t s ’ o bj ect i o nan d th e qu esti o nw en tun an s w ered. 4 I I I . Jury Ver dict and Ap peal 5 O n S e p te m b e r2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , the j u r y re tu r ned a ver d i c t in f

a vor of A p p e l l e e s on

al lcou nts . T he 6 D i str i c tCo urts ub se qu e n t ly d e n i e d A pp e l l a n t s’ mo t i o n s f o rj ud gm e n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w u n de rFe d. R. 7 C i v . P . 50 o r f

o r a n ew tri alun der F ed. R . Ci v . P . 59, an d en t ered j ud gm en tinf av o r o f App el l ees. 8 Ap pel l an t s f

i l ed a t i m ely

app eal
. 9 O n ap p e a l , A p p e l l a nts m a ke fo u rar g u m e nts . F i r s t, the y ar g u e that the s e c u r i ty

ca m e r a p hotos 10 d e f

i ni ti vel y es ta b l i s h that the e vents d i d no t hap p e n as A p p e l l e e s d e s c r ib e them . E ven thou g h the 11 ph o t o s w e r e o n ly t a k e ne v e r y

tw o se c o n ds, A ppe l l a n t s c o n t e n d th a tth e y st i l l“ bl a t a n t ly

c o n tr a di c t e d” 12 R am os and R i vera’ s v er s i on o f th e i nci d ent, f

or the pho to s al l eg ed ly

s ho w th at C am er on

n ever p u t a 13 h an d th ro ugh th e po l i ce c ar ’s w i n do w . Bec ause sum mary j udgm enti s appro pri at e w h er e 14 “ [ i ] ncontr over tib l e evi d e nce . . . s o u tte r ly d i s c r e d i ts the op p os i ng p a r ty ’ s ver s i on [ of eve nts ] that no 15 reason abl e j uror c o ul d f ai lt o bel i ev e th e v ersi o nadv an ced b y th e mov i n g p arty ,” Zellne rv. Su m m er li n , 16 494 F.3 d 3 44, 37 1 ( 2d Ci r . 20 07) , A ppe l l a n t s a r gue , th e D i str i c tCo ur te r r e d inde ny i n g th e i rRul e 50 17 m o t i o n . 18 S e c ond , the y cl a i m that the D i s tr i c t C ou r t ab u s e d i ts d i s c r e ti on i n al l ow i ng P a ng i l i nan, 19 B ran don , a n d P et ersont o t esti f y (a) t o R am o s ’s an d R i v era’s cred ibi l i ty , (b) t o th e decl aran t s ’ bel i ef 20 that the r e w a s p r ob a b l e ca u s e f or the ar r e s ts and p r os e c u ti on, and (c ) to the c ons i s te ncy of 21 d ocu m entary

evi d ence w ithth e p ar ti es ’ al l eg ati on s . They arg u e th at thi s tes tim ony w as irr el evant , 22 i m p r op e r ly

s ta te d a l e g a lconc lu s i on, vou c hed f or the of f i c e r s ’ cr e d ib i l i ty , a nd im p r op e r ly op i ned on

the 23 ev i dence bef

o re th e j ury . See F ed. R . Ev i d. 40 1, 40 3, 70 1. Add i t i o n al ly , th ey co n t en d, P an gi l i n an11 1 s h o ul d n o th av e beenperm i t t ed to des cribe th e co n t en t s o f th e arrest pho t o grap h s an d 9 11 cal l s , w h i ch 2 w ere n o l o n ger av ai l abl e at th e t i m e o f

tri al
. See F e d
. R
. E v id
. 4 0 3 , 1 0 0 2
. A p p e ll a n t s a ls o m a int a in 3 that the s e er r ors w e r e no t har m l e s s , a s the A p p e l l e e s ’ ca s e w a s w e a k and the i m p r op e rtes ti m ony w e nt 4 t o th e centrali s s ues o f th e case: pro bab l e caus e an d th e credibi l i ty o f R am o s an d R i v era. I nresp o n s e, 5 A pp e l l e e s a ss e r tp r i ma r i ly th a tth i s t e st i mo ny

wa s r e l e v a n tt o Ca me r o n ’ s ma l i c i o us p r o se c ut i o nc l a i m, 6 b e c a u s e i t s how e d that the p r os e c u tor s “m a d e ind e p e nd e nt d e c i s i ons b a s e d on ad d i ti onal , c orr ob ora ti ng 7 e v i de n c e , ” A ppe l l e e s’ Br
. 38 ; th e y a l so c l a i m th a ta l lo f

th e t e st i mo ny

w a s r e l e v a n tt o da mag e s a n d, 8 f urth ermo re , th at

Pet er so n ’s t est i mo ny

w as r el ev antt o Appel l ant s’ M o n ell cl ai m s . 9 Third, A

ppell an t s argue t h at t h e Di s t ri ct Co urt err ed i n decli ni n g t h ei r r eques t f

o r an 1 0 i n s tru c ti on th at H i g g e n

b ottom ’ s arr e s t f

orob s tru c ti

n g g ov e rn

me n ta l a dm i ni s tr ati on c ou l d n ot 11 h av e b een

l awf ul i f Ca mero n ’ s arr es t was n o t l awf ul
. Speci f

i call y , A ppell an t s as ked t h e Di s t ri ct 12 Co urt t o i

n s t ruct t h e j ury

t h at “ [i ]f
. . . pro b ab l e ca

us e wa s l acki

n g f o r Ms
. Ca mero n ’ s arr es t , t h en 13 def

en dant s’ act i o n s wer e n o t aut h o r ized by l aw an d [ t h e j ury ’s ] v er di ct m ust b e f o rMs. 1 4 H i g g e n

b ottom . ” J
. A
. 5 3
. I n s te a d , th e D i s tr i c t C ourt i n s tru c te d th e j ury th at th e of

f e n s e of 1 5 o b s t ru c t i

n g g o v e rn

me n t a l a dm i ni s t rat i o n w a s c o m m i t t e d b y i n t e rf e ri n g w i t h “ an o f f i c i a l f un c t i o n ,” 16 wi

t h o ut def i ni n g t h at t erm . J
. A
. 661. 1 7 F o urt h , A p p e ll an t s c l a i m t h at t h e D i s t ri c t C o urt e rre d i n d e c li ni n g t h e i r re qu e s t f

o r a 1 8 p unit iv e d ama g e s in s t ru c t io n . D ur ing t h e c h ar g ing c o n fe r e nc e , A p p e lla n t s ar g u e d t h at t h e ir 1 9 e v i d e n c e s u

p p orte d a f i n d i n gth at R amos an d

Ri v e r a h a d i n te n ti on a ll y li e d , wh i c h

A p p e ll an ts 20 cl ai

med co ul d co n s t i

t ut e “ i n t en t i o n al and mali ci o us ” o r “ wan

t o n and reckl es s ” co n duct
. J
. A
. 476- 2 1 7 7
. T h e D i s tr i c t C ourt d e ni e d the r e q u e s t, s ta ti ng that “ w hi l e [A p p e l l a nts ] ra i s e g e nu i ne i s s u e s of12 1 mat e r i a lf

a c ta s t o w h e th e rO f

f i c e rRa mo s a n d Ri v e r a c o mmi t t e d f a l se a r r e sta n d in i t i a t e d ama l i c i o us 2 pr o se c ut i o n [ , t ] h e r e i s n o e v i de n c e th a tth e i ra c t i o n s w e r e w a n t o n , ma l i c i o us o rr e c k l e ss. ” J
. A. 49 7. 3 DI SCU SSI ON 4 I . M oti on f

or Judgme nt as a M att er

of Law 5 W e rev i ew t h e deni al o f a m o t i o n f o r j udgmen

t as a m at t er o f l aw de novo , and

w i ll g r ant 6 t he mo t i o n o nl

y i f “a r e a s o na bl e j ury w o u l d no t have a

l e g a ll y s u f f i c i e nt e vi d e nt i ary

ba s i s t o f i nd 7 f o rt he [ no n- mo vant ] o n t hat i ss u e . ” Fe d
. R. Civ. P
. 5 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; s e eals o O liv ie r v . R ob e r t L. 8 Y eag er M ental Hea lth Ctr. , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d

1 8 3 , 1 8 8 ( 2 d

C ir
. 2 0 0 5 )
. W e “mu s t dr awa ll r e a s o n a b le 9 i n f e r e n c e s i n f av orof th e n on mov i n g p arty , an d

. . . may n ot mak e c r e d i

b i li ty d e te rm i n ati on s or 10 weigh

t h e evi den ce.” R eev esv. Sanders on P lumbing Prods

. , Inc. , 5 3 0 U .S. 1 3 3 , 1 5 0 (2 0 0 0 ). 1 1 B ut “ [ o] urob li g ati on to dr awa ll

r e a s on a b l e i n f e r e n c e s i n f av orof [ th e n on - mov an

t] d oe s n ot 12 mean

we m us t credi t a v ersi o n

o f t h e f act s t h at i s b eli ed b y

t h e reco rd. ” T

a b b a a v . C

h e r to ff , 509 1 3 F. 3 d

8 9 , 9 3 n. 1 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. Ac c o r d i

ng l y , w e “g i ve c r e d e nc e t o . . . t hat e vi d e nc e s u p p o rt i ng 14 t h e m

o v i n g part y t h at i s unco n

t radi ct ed and uni

m peac h ed, at l eas t t o t h e ex t en t t h at t h at ev i den ce 15 co mes f

ro m di s i n t eres t ed wi

t n es s es . ” R eev es , 5 3 0 U .S. at 1 5 1 (i n t e rn a l qu o t at i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ). 16 W

h en a mo v an t pr esen t s “ [ i ] n co n

t r o v ert i b l e ev i den ce . . . such

as a r el ev an

t v i deo t ape w h o se 1 7 a c c ur a c y is un c h a lle ng e d , ” w e w ill g r an t t h e mo v an

t ’ s mo t io n

fo rju d g me n

t a s a mat t e ro f lawif 1 8 t h at e v id e n c e “ s o ut t e r ly d is c r e d it s t h e o p p o s ing p art y’ s v e r s io n t h at n o r e a s o n a

b le jur o rc o u ld

fa il 19 t o b eli ev e t h e v ersi o n adv an ced by

t h e m o v i n g part y . ” Zellner , 4 9 4 F. 3 d at 3 7 1 ; see al

so Scott v. 20 Ha r

r is , 5 5 0 U .S. 3 7 2 , 3 8 0 (2 0 0 7 ). 2 1 A

p p e lla n t s d o n o t c la im t h at an

yt h ing in t h e t r ia l t e s t imo n

y it s e lf r e qu ir e d

a v e r d ic t in t h e ir 2 2 f av o r. In s t e a d , t h e y

arg u e t h at t h e s e c uri

t y c ame ra p h o t o s w e re “uni

m p e a c h e d e v i d e n c e . . .Aft er st a t i n g t w i ce t h a tC a m er o n r ea ch ed i n “m o r e o r l ess” du r i n g o n e o f t h e two - seco n dl ap ses b etw een 4 p h o to g r ap h s in that f

o u r - s e c o n dinte r v al , R

iv e r a s ta te dmo r e p r e c is e ly that the re ac h ing o c c u r r e din that t ime pe r io d. J.A. 210. 13 1 wh i ch

a j ury i s ‘ r equ i r ed t o b eli ev e, ’” and t h at t h o se ph o t o s “ co n cl usi v el y pr o v e t h at Ms. 2 C ame r o n did

no t re ac h in to t

hepo lic ec ar

at a ll
. ” Ap p e ll ant s ’ B r . 2 8
- 2 9
. I n t hr e e c o ns e c ut i ve 3 ph o t o graph s , Ca

mero n i s i n an al mo s t i den t i cal po s i t i o n , l eani n g f o rward at t h e pas s enger- s i de 4 w in d o wo f t h e p o lic e c ar . T h is is p r e c is e ly t h e p e r io d o f t ime d ur ing wh ic h

C ame r o n a lle g e d ly 5 reach ed i

n t o t h e po li ce c ar, acc o rdi

n g t o Ra mo s ’ s and Ri

v era’ s t es t i

mo n y at t ri al
. Ra

mo s t es t i f i ed 6 t h at Camer o n

r each ed i n t o t h e carat t h e mo men

t o f t h e seco n d p i ct ur e i

n t h i s seri es, wh i l e Ri

v e ra 7 s tate d

th at h e “ g u e s s [ e d ] ” th at C ame r on r e a c h e d i n “mor e orl e s s ” i

n th e f our - s e c on d

w i n d ow 8 c om

p r i s e d b y th e th r e e p i c tur e s . J
. A
. 2 1 0 , 3 2 7
. B e c a u s e “ M s . C ame r on ’ s ov e r a ll b ody p os i ti on 4 9 d oe s n ot c h an g e f

r om on e p h oto to t h e n e xt, ” A p p e ll an ts c on te n d , A p p e ll e e s ’ v e r s i on

of e v e n ts 10 “ def

i es reali t y and rel i es o n

s h eer s urmi s e and s peculat i o n co n cerni n g t h e b ri ef

t i me-l aps e b et wee n 1 1 e a c h

p h o t o .” A

p p e ll an t s ’ B r. 2 9 -3 0 . In d e e d , t h e y ma i n t a i n , A p p e ll e e s ’ v e rs i o n

(wh i c h t h e j ury 12 acc ept ed) “ call s f o r sus pen s i o n

o f b eli ef i n t h e l aws o f

t h e ph y s i cal uni v erse . ” A ppell an t s ’ Br. 30. 13 W e di s agree. T h e ph o t o graph s are n o t n earl y s o co n cl us i v e as t o ren der t h e j ury ’ s v erdi ct 1 4 un

r e a s o n a b le a s a mat t e ro f law . T h e p h o t o g r a p h s ar e b lurry a

n d t ak e n at s o me d is t an c e ; it is 1 5 i m p o s s i bl e whe n vi e w i

ng t he p ho t o g r a

p hs i n s e qu e nc e t o t e ll

d e f i ni t i ve l y whe t he rC ame r o n’s r i g ht 16 arm

i s v i s i b l e b et wee n

h er b o dy and t h e po li ce c ar, o r i s i n s t ead a t h er side and b l o cked f

ro m v i ew 1 7 b y

h e rb od y . W e c an

n ot ru l e out th e p os s i

b i li ty th at th e p h otog r a

p h s a c tu a ll

y d e p i c te d C ame r on 1 8 w it h

h e rh an d in s id e t h e p o lic e c ar , le t a lo n e t h e p o s s ib ili t y t h at s h e mig h

t h av e p ut h e rh an d s in 1 9 t he p o li c e c ari

n be t w e e n p i c t ur e s . C e rt a i nl y i t s e e m s unli

k e l y t hat s he d i d

s o , g i ve n t he 20 si

m i l ar i t i es i n po st ur e i n t h e t h r ee pi ct ur es at i ssue, b ut t h e pi ct ur es do n o t rul e o ut A pp el l ees’14 1 i nt e r p r e t at i o n, a s t he y

w o u l d ne e d t o d o t o j u s t i f

y g r ant i ng Ap p e ll ant s ’ mo t i o n. M o r e o ve r , t he 2 j ury

r e a s o na bl y c o u l d have f o und t hat C ame r o n r e a c he d

i nt o t he p o li c e c arat t he ve ry e nd o f t he 3 sequence, par t i cul ar l y gi v en Ri v er a’s t est i

mo n y t h at t h e r each i

n g o ccur r ed o n l

y “mo r e o rl ess” 4 w i t h i n t h e f o ur-s e c o n d

i n t e rv a l . C ame ron ’ s p o s t ure c h an g e s dramat i c a ll y b e t w e e n t h e t h i rd 5 ph o t o graph

t h at depi ct s h er l eani

n g t o ward t h e po li ce c ar an d t h e f o ll o wi n g ph o t o graph

i n wh i ch 6 s he ha s s t r a i g ht e ne d u p . I t w o u l d

t he r e f o r e be a r e a s o na bl e i nt e r p r e t at i o n t hat C ame r o n m i g ht 7 h av e re a c h e d

i n t o t h e p o li c e s qu a d

c ar at t h at t i

me . 8 T h i s i s n o t t o say t h at st i ll ph o t o gr aph s can

n ev erb eli e a par t y ’s i

n t er pr et at i o n o f ev en t s so 9 d e f

i ni ti v e l y th at j u d g me n

t a s a matte rof l awi s w arr an

te d
. W e h old

onl y th at th eseph o t o gr aph s, 1 0 e s p e c i a ll

y whe n vi e w e d

i n li g ht o f t he t e s t i mo ny and t he r e c o r d

i n t hi s c a s e , d o no t p r o vi d e t he 1 1 l e v e l

of c e rta i n ty r e qu i s i te to ne g ate th e j ury ’ s v e r d i c t. 12 I I . Te s ti m ony of th e P r os ecutor s and Lieut enant P eter s on 13 A

. Standard of R evie w 14 “ W e r ev i ew a d i st r i ct co ur t ’s ev i dent i ary rul i n gs f o rab use o f

di scr et i o n , an d wi ll

r ev er se 15 o n l

y f o r mani f es t err o r. ” Manl ey v . A mBase C or p. , 3 3 7 F. 3 d

2 3 7 , 2 4 7 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c i

t at i o ns 1 6 o mit t e d )
. W e a ffo r d d is t r ic t c o urt s “w id e lat it u d e . . . in d e t e rmining wh e t h e re v id e n c e is 1 7 a dm

i s s i bl e , and i n c o nt r o lli

ng t he mo d e and

o r d e ro f i t s p r e s e nt at i o n t o p r o mo t e t he e f f e c t i ve 18 as cert ai

n men t o f t h e t rut h
. ” SR Int’l Bu s . Ins . Co . v. W orld T r ad eC tr. Prop s ., LLC, 467 F
. 3d 1 9 1 0 7 , 1 1 9 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (c i

t at i o n s an d

i n t e rn a l qu o t at i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ). 2 0 E v e n

i f w e d o f i n d th at e v i d e n

ti ary ru li n g s w e r e mani f

e s tl y e rr on e ou s , w e w i ll

n ot g r an t a 21 n ew t ri al

i f we f i n d t h at t h e i

m pro perl y adm i t t ed evi den ce w as “h arm

l es s —i
. e., [t h at ] t h e evi den ce 22 was uni

m po rt an t i n rel at i o n t o ev ery t h i n g el s e t h e j ury

co n s i dered o n

t h e i s s ue i

n ques t i o n . ”15 1 United States v. Ger mos en , 139 F
. 3d 120, 127 (2d Ci r. 1998). A

n err o r i s h arm

l es s i f we “ can 2 co n cl

ude wi t h f ai r ass uran ce t h at t h e evi den ce did n o t s ub s t an t i all y i n f l uen ce t h e j ury . ” United 3 States v. R ea , 9 5 8 F. 2 d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 2 0 ( 2 d

C i r . 1 9 9 2 )
. We c o ns i d e rs e ve r a l f a c t o r s i n d e t e rm i ni ng 4 wh e t h e re v id e n

t iary e rr o rw arr an

t s a n e wt r ia l: 5 I nass ess i n g th e w ro n gl y adm i t t ed test i m o ny ’s im port an ce, w e co n s i der s uch f act o rs as w h eth er 6 th e t esti m o ny bo re o nani s s ue th ati s pl ain ly cri t i calt o th e j ury ’s deci s i o n , w h eth er th at 7 t esti m o ny w as m at eri alt o th e establ i s h m en t o f th e crit i calf

acto r w h eth er i tw as i n s t ead 8 c o r r o b o r a t e d a n d c u m u la t ive , a n d w h e th e rth e w r o n g ly a d m itt e d e v id e n c e w a s e m p h a s iz e d in 9 a r g u m e n t s t o th e ju r y. 10 W

r ay v. Johns on , 202 F
. 3d 515, 526 (2d Ci r. 2000) ( ci

t at i o n s and i

n t ern al quo t at i o n

marks 11 o m

i t t ed). W e al s o co n s i der “ t h e o v erall s t ren gt h o f t h e [appell ees ’ ] cas e.” Un ite d S tates v . A l12 Moayad , 5 4 5 F. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 6 4 ( 2 d

Cir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t at i o n m

ark s o m i t t e d ) ; s ee als o W

r ay , 202 F
. 3d at 1 3 5 2 6 ( “ [ T ] h e p r in c ip a l fa c t o r s t o b e c o n s id e r e d ar e t h e imp o rt an c e o f t h e w it n e s s ’ s wr o n g ly 1 4 a dm

i t t e d t e s t i mo n y , an d t h e o v e ra ll

s t re n g t h o f t h e [a p p e ll e e s ’ ] c a s e .” ). 15 B
. A

pplicable Rul esof

Evidenc e 1 6 U nd e rt he Fe d e r a l R u l e s o f E vi d e nc e , r e l e vant e vi d e nc e
—t hat i s , e vi d e nc e t hat ha s “any 1 7 t e nd e nc y

t o mak e t he e xi s t e nc e o f

any f a c t t hat i s o f

c o ns e qu e nc e t o t he d e t e rm i nat i o n o f t he 1 8 a c t io n

mo r e p r o b a

b le o rle s s p r o b a

b le ” is “ g e n e r a lly

a dmis s ib le
. ” F e d
. R
. E v id
. 4 0 1 , 4 0 2
. T h is 1 9 p r e s ump t io n

o f a dmis s ib ili

t y is s u b je c t t o man

y e x c e p t io n s , s e v e r a l o f w h ic h ar e imp lic at e d

in t h is 20 cas e. 2 1 F i

r s t, “ [ a ] s a

matte rof l aw , th e c r e d i

b i li ty of w i tn e s s e s i s e x c l

u s i v e l y f orth e d e te rm

i n ati on 22 b y

t h e j ury , and wi

t n es s es may

n o t o pi n e as t o t h e credi

b i li t y o f t h e t es t i mo n y o f o t h er wi t n es s es 23 at t h e t ri al
. ” United States v. For res ter , 60 F
. 3d 52, 63 (2d Ci r. 1995) ( i

n t ern al quo t at i o n

marks 2 4 and

br a c k e t s o m

i t t e d ) ; s ee al

so United States v. Johnson , 5 2 9 F
. 3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 9 ( 2 d

C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ I t isT he c a s e s l a y i ng o u tt hi s ru l e ha v e f

o c u s e do n e

x pe rt witn e s s e s . B u t th e imp r o p r ie ty o f al lo w ing a la

y w itn e s s to 5 te s tif y in th e f o r m o f a le gal c o n c lus io n is all th e c le ar e r . I n an y e v e n t, as th e A dv is o r y

Co mm itte e s tate d in a m e nd i ng R

u l e 7 0 1 i n 2 0 0 0 , “ a [ l a y] wi t ne s s ’ t e s t i m o ny m u s tb e s c ru t i ni z e dund e r the ru l e s re g u l a t i ng e x p e rt o p i n i o n t o t h e e x t en tt h a tt h e wi t n ess i s p r o v i d i n g t est i m o n y b a sedo n sci en t i f

i c, t ech n i ca l , o r o t h er sp ecia l i z ed kn o w le dge .” F e d. R . E v id. 701 A dv iso r y Co m m it te e ’s No te (2000). 16 1
. . . i

m p e rm i s s i b l e f or a g ov e rn me n t a g e n t to v ou c h

f or a g ov e rn me n t w i tn e s s or g e n e r a ll y to 2 o pi

n e o n t h e credi b i li t y o f wi t n es s es . ” (ci

t at i o n s o m

i t t ed))
. F o r ex am

pl e, it i s t y

pi call y i m pro per 3 f o r an i n v es t i gat i n g agen t t o “ co m m uni cat [e] t h ath e h ad s kept i call y and s crupul o us l

y ch ecke d o ut 4 all t h e i n f o rmat i o n f urn i s h ed b y

t h e wi t n es s es b ef

o re acc ept i

n g i t . ” Johns on , 5 2 9 F .3 d

at 4 9 8
. 5 S i m i l ar l y , w e h av e f

oun d e rr or wh e r e an e x p e rt w i tn e s s “ s tate d

th at h e ‘ r e

j e c te d ’ th e p os s i

b i li ty 6 t h at [wit n es s es ] h ad li ed.” Nime ly v

. Cit y of New Y ork, 4 1 4 F .3 d

3 8 1 , 3 9 8 (2 d

C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). 7 Seco n d, wi t n es s es may

n o t “prese n

t t es t i mo n y i n t h e f o rm o f l egal co n cl us i o n s . ” United 8 States v. A r ticles of B anned Hazar

dous Subs tancesCons isting of an Undeter

mined N umber of 9 Cansof

R ainbow F oam Paint , 3 4 F. 3 d

9 1 , 9 6 ( 2 d

Cir . 1 9 9 4 ) ; acco rd Dens ber ger v. United 10 Techs

. Cor

p. , 297 F
. 3d 66, 74 (2d Ci r. 2002). Such

t es t i mo n y “un dert akes t o t ell

t h e j ury wh at 5 11 resul

t t o reach , and t h

us at t em pt s t o s ub s t i

t ut e t h e [wi

t n es s ’ s ] j udgmen

t f o r t h e j ury ’ s . ” N

im e ly , 1 2 4 1 4 F
. 3 d

at 3 9 7 ( in

t e rn a l q u o t at io n mark s o mit t e d )
. H e n c e , “ t h e is s u e o f w h e t h e ro rn o t p r o b a b le 1 3 c a

u s e to arr e s t e x i s ts i s a

l e g a l d e te rm i n ati on th at i s n ot p r op e r l

y th e s u b j e c t of e x p e rt op i ni on 14 t es t i

m o n y . ” R izzo v. Edison Inc. , 4 1 9 F . Su p p . 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 8 (W .D .N .Y . 2 0 0 5 ), a f f ’d No
. 05- 1 5 3 7 0 7 , 1 7 2 F e d
. Ap p ’ x 3 9 1 ( 2 d C ir
. M ar . 2 4 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( s umm ary o r d e r )
. O n

t h e o t h e rh an d , if

a 16 wi

t n ess’ s ow

n belief a s t o p rob a

b l e c a u s e i s re l e v an

t t o t h e o ut c o me o f

a c a s e (f o r e x am p l e , wh e re 17 a po li ce o f

f i ceri s sued f

o rf al se arr est , an d cl ai

m s t h at sh e b eli ev ed sh e po sses sed pr o b ab l e cause 18 t o arr es t ), t h at wi t n es s ’ s t es t i

mo n y ab o ut h er o wn

s ub j ect i v e b eli ef may b e adm i s s i b l e. 19 T h i

rd, a l ay wi t n es s may t es t i f y i n t h e f o rm o f an o pi ni o n , ev en

o n e t h at go es t o “ an17 1 u lt imat e is s u e t o b e d e c id e d b y t h e t r ie ro f fa c t , ” b ut may d o s o o n ly s o lo n g a s t h at t e s t imo n y is 2 “h el

pf ul t o a clear un derst andi

n g o f t h e wi t n es s ’ t es t i

mo n y o r t h e det erm

i n at i o n o f a f acti n i s s ue.” 3 F e d . R . Ev i d . 7 0 1 (b ), 7 0 4 (a ). Thi s “h e l p f u l n e s s re qu i re me n t i s d e s i g n e d

t o p rov i d e a s s uran c e [] 4 a g a in s t t h e a dmis s io n o f o p inio n s wh ic h

w o u ld me r e ly t e ll t h e jury wh at r e s u lt t o r e a c h ” o rw o u ld 5 co n s t i

t ut e an at t em pt “ t o i n t ro duce m

eani n gl es s as s ert i o n s whi ch

am o un t t o li t t l e m o re t h an 6 ch o o s i

n g up s i des
. ” R ea , 9 5 8 F. 2 d at 1 2 1 5
- 1 6 ( i

nt e rnal qu o t at i o n m

ark s o m i t t e d ) ; see al

so F ed. 7 R
. E v id
. 7 0 1 A dv is o ry C o mmi t t e e ’ s N o t e ( 1 9 7 2 )
. F o re x amp le , wh e n ju r o r s c an s e e w it h t h e ir 8 o wn

e ye s b o t h

a d e fe n d an t an d a p h o t o g r a p h t h at a lle g e d ly d e p ic t s t h at d e fe n d an t , t h e r e is u s u a lly 9 n o n e e d

f or a w i tn e s s to t e s ti f

y to a r e s e m b l an c e b e tw e e n

th e tw o; b ut i f

a p arty a ll e g e s th at a 1 0 p ho t o g r a

p h d e p i c t s a

p e r s o n t he j ury

ha s no t s e e n, t hat t e s t i

mo ny may be he l p f u l i n e s t a bli s hi ng 1 1 t h e s i

m i l ari t y . See U nited States v. R obinson , 5 4 4 F .2 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 7 6 ). 12 F i

n all y , all s uch t es t i mo n y i s s ub j ectt o t h e general

b al an ci n g rul e o f Rule 403, wh i ch 1 3 p r o vi d e s t hat “e vi d e nc e may be e xc l u d e d i f i t s p r o bat i ve va l u e i s s u bs t ant i a ll y o ut w e i g he d

by t he 1 4 d an g e rof

un f a i rp r e j u d i c e , c on f

u s i on of th e i s s u e s , orm

i s l e a d i n g th e j ury , orb y

c on s i d e r ati on s of 15 un due delay , was t e o f t i me, o r n eedles s prese n

t at i o n o f cum ul at i v e evi den ce.” F ed. R. E v i d. 403; 16 s ee ge ner

ally, e.g. , United States v. Salameh , 1 5 2 F .3 d 8 8 , 1 1 0 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (p e r c uri am

). 17 C. A

pp li cat io n t o the I

nsta nt Case 1 8 U n d e rth e s e w e ll
- s e ttl e d ru l e s of e v i d e n c e , m

u c h of th e c h a ll e n g e d

te s ti mon y w ou l d qu i te 1 9 o b v io u s ly be in a dmis s ib le in t h e o r d in ary c a s e . A

p p e lle e s ar g u e , h o w e v e r , t h at t h is c a s e is 2 0 d i f

f e r e nt , be c a

u s e t he e l e me nt s o f

ma li c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n c l a i m s r e nd e rt he c ha ll e ng e d

t e s t i mo ny 21 adm

i s s i b l e. I n part i cul ar, A

ppell ees cl ai

m t h at Pan gi li

n an ’ s and Brando n ’ s t es t i mo n y s h o wed t h at 22 pro s ecut o rs “made i n dependen

t deci s i o n s b as ed o n

addi t i o n al , co rr o b o rat i

n g ev i den ce,” and t h atAp p el l ee s d efe n dP et er s on ’ s t es t i m on y on ad i ffer en tg r ou n d , a r g u i n g t h a th i s r ol e a s Ra m os ’ s s up er vi s or 6 r e n de r e d h is opin io n s as to pr o b ab le c ause an d Ram o s’ c r e dib il it y r e le v an t to Appe ll an ts’ Mon ell c l a i m , b e c a use Pe te r so n w as Ram o s an d Riv e r a’s s upe r v iso r . B ut Appe ll an ts’ Mon ell cla i m does n o tco n cer n h o w t h e Ci t y o f New Y o rk re s p o nd e dt o t he i nc i d e nti n thi s ca se; i tf o cus es i n st ea do n h o w

t h e Ci t y h a dsup er v i seda n ddi sci p l i n ed Ram o s in th e past. As a r e sult, a s disc uss e d i nf ra _ _ _ , w hi l e s o m e o f

P e t e rs o n’ s t e s t i m o ny

m a y ha v e b e e n re l e v a nt t o t h e Mon ell

c laim, m uc h o f

it w as n o t. 18 1 R am

o s and Ri ve r a m i g ht t he r e f

o r e no t “be c o ns i d e r e d

t o have ‘c a

u s e d ’ o r‘p r o c ur e d ’ t he 2 pro s ecut i o n , t h

us def eat i n g gro un ds f

o r l i ab i li t y . ” A ppell ees ’ Br. 38 (quo t i

n g W hite v. Fr ank, 855 3 F .2 d

9 5 6 , 9 6 2 (2 d

C i r. 1 9 8 8 )). 6 4 T h i s argumen t m i s un derst ands t h e n at ure o f t h e t o rt o f

mali ci o us pro s ecut i o n . M ali ci o us 5 p r o s e c ut i o n o c c ur s whe n “ ( 1) th e de f e n da n tin i t i a t e d apr o se c ut i o na ga i n stpl a i n t i f f , ( 2) w i th o ut 6 pr o babl e c a use t o be l i e v e th e pr o c e e din g c a nsuc c e e d, ( 3) th e pr o c e e din g was b e gunw i thma l i c e a n d, 7 (4) th e matt er t erm i n at ed i npl ain t i f f ’s f av o r.” Ri c c i ut iv . N. Y

. Ci t y Transi t Au th. , 12 4 F. 3d 123, 13 0 8 ( 2 d C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . U nd e rN e w Y ork l a w , p ol i c e of f i c e r s ca n “i ni ti a te ” p r os e c u ti on b y f i l i ng cha r g e s or 9 o th er acc us at o ry

in s trum en t s . I

d. ; se e al so, e . g. , M

urph y v . Ly nn , 11 8 F. 3d 938, 94 4 ( 2d Ci r . 19 97) 10 ( “ U nd e rN e w Y ork l a w , i f ther e has b e e n n o ind i c tm e nt, a cr i m i nalac ti on i s com m e nce d b y the f i l i ng 11 of

an ac c u s a tor y

ins tru m e nt, to w i t, a ‘fel ony com p l a i nt’ f

or a f e l ony cha r g e , ora ‘ m i s d e m e a nor 12 com p l ai nt ’ or an ‘i nf orm ati on ’ f

or a m i s d em eanor ch ar g e.” (ci tati on s o m i tt ed )) ; Low th v

. Town o f 13 Che e kt ow aga , 82 F. 3d 563, 56 8, 57 1 (2d Ci r. 1996) (f i n di n g “n o di spu t e as t o th e f i rst. . . e l ement [] ” 14 w her e the p l a i nti f f “w a s im m e d i a te ly

take n to the p ol i c e s ta ti on a nd w a s cha r g e d ” b y the d e f e nd a nt 15 o f

f i ce r)
. 1 6 A s th e D i s tr i c t C ourt c orr e c tl y i n s tr u c te d th e j ury , th e r e w a s n o d i s p ute i n thi s c a s e a s to 17 t h e ex i st en ce o f

t h e f i r st an d f o ur t h pr o n gs o f

Camer o n ’s mali ci o us pr o secut i o n cl ai m . A s a 1 8 mat t e ro f

l aw , R amo s and

Ri ve r a ’s f i li ng o f t he C r i m i na l C o urt C o m

p l a i nt “i ni t i at e d ” t he 1 9 p ros e c ut i o n

a g a i n s t C ame ron . Se eRicc iut i , 1 2 4 F. 3 d at 1 3 0
. A

n d , o f co ur se, Camer o n ’s19 1 a c qu it t a l in

t h e c r imi n a l p r o s e c ut io n

c o n s t it ut e d

a t e rmin at io n

in h e rfav o r . H e n c e , t h e o n ly 2 ques t i o n s t h at t h e j ury h ad t o decide wi

t h respe ct t o t h e m

ali ci o us pro s ecut i o n

cl ai m were (a) 3 wh e t h e r R amo s and R ive ra h a d

p rob a b l e c a u s e t o i ni t i at e t h e p ros e c ut i o n ; (b ) wh e t h e r R amos and 4 R ive ra i

ni t i at ed t h e pro cee di

n g wi t h mali ce; and (c) wh at dam ages , i f an y , Ca mero n was en t i t l ed 5 t o . 6 A

ppell ees s ugges t t h at t h e j ury h ad ano t h er ques t i o n

t o an s wer, o n

whi ch t h e ch all enged 7 t est i

m o n y was r el ev an

t : w h et h ert h e pr o secut o r s’ o pi ni o n s an d act i o n s at t en

uat ed t h e o f

f i cer s’ 8 c a u s a l r e s p o ns i bi li t y f o rt he p r o s e c ut i o n. B ut g e ne r a ll y i n ma li c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n a c t i o ns a ll e g i ng 9 th at a

p oli c e of f i c e rp r ovi d e d

f a l s e i n f ormati on to a p r os e c utor , wh at p r o s e c u t o r s d o s u b s e q u e n t ly 10 h as n o ef

f ectw h at s o ev er o nth e po l i ce o f f i cer’s i n i t i al , po t en t i al ly

t o rt i o us beh av i o r. See H i ga z y v. 11 Tem

pl e t on , 505 F .3d 16 1, 17 7 (2 d C i r. 200 7) (“[T ]h e ch aino f caus at i o nn eed n o tbe co n s i dered 12 b r o k e nif [ a d e fe n d a n tg o v e r n m e n ta g e n t ] d e c e ive d th e s u b s e q u e n t d e c is ion m a k e ro rc o u ld r e a s o n a b ly 13 f ore s e e that hi s m i s c ond u c t [w ou l d ] contr ib u te to a n ind e p e nd e nt d e c i s i on that r e s u l ts in a d e p r i vati on 14 of

l ib er ty .” (a l tera ti on

in ori g i nal ) (c i tati on

and i nt er nalq u ot ati on

m ar ks om i tt ed )) ; Zah r ey v. C off ey , 15 221 F.3 d 3 42, 35 2 (2d Ci r. 2000) (“ Ev en i f th e i n t erv en i n g dec i si o n -mak er( sucha s a pro sec ut o r, 16 g r a nd j u r y , orj u d g e ) i s no t m i s l e d or c oer c e d , i t i s no t re a d i ly ap p a r e nt w hy

the cha i n o f

ca u s a ti on 17 s h o ul d b e co n s i dered bro k enw h ere th e in i t i alw ro n gd o er can reaso n abl y

f o resee th ath i s m i s co n du ct 18 w i l lc o n tribut e t o a n‘ i n depen dent ’ dec i si o nth at r esul t s i nadepr i v at i o no f l iber ty . ”)
. 1 9 A

p p e ll e e s r e l

y on d i c tas u g g e s ti

n g th at th e “ i

n d e p e n d e n

t j u d g me n t” of a g r an d j ury or 2 0 p u

b lic p r o s e c ut o rmig h

t , in s o me c ir c ums t an c e s , at t e n u at e a c o mp la ining w it n e s s ’ s r o le in 2 1 “ c a

u s i n g ” o r “ p rocuri n g ” a p ros e c ut i o n . Se eW

hite , 8 5 5 F
. 2 d

at 9 6 2
. T h is d ic t a

me r e ly 22 ackno wl edges t h at a co m pl ai ni n g layper s on mig h t n o t b e r e s p o n s ib le fo ra

p r o s e c ut io n

if20 1 p r os e c utor s g o f

orw ar d b a s e d on i n d e p e n d e n

t, u n ta i n te d e v i d e n c e . A s a

r e s u l t, i t w ou l d n ot 2 app eart h at i

t h as any appli cat i o n

wh ere a po li ce o f

f i cer i s all eged t o h av e m

ali ci o us l y m i s l ed a 3 p ros e c ut o r. See H i gazy , 50 5 F. 3d a t17 7; Z ah r ey , 22 1 F. 3d a t35 4 n
. 10 ( “ [ A ] p ol i c e of f i c e rw ho 4 f ab ri cated evi d ence and f orw ar d ed th at evi d ence to a p ros ecu to r (w ho u s ed i t aga i nst a d ef end ant) 5 w oul d [b e] l i ab l e f or the co nse q u ences o f

h i s m i s con d u ct . . . .”); Ll e rando- Phi pps v . Ci t

y of Ne w Y ork , 6 3 9 0 F
. S u p p . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 8 3 ( S
. D
. N
. Y
. 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ [ A ] p p lying th e la yp e r s o ns t a n d a r d t o th e p o li c e w o u ld 7 meanth at

l aw e n f o rc emento f

f i ce rs w o ul d n ev erbe l i abl e f o r mal i ci o us pro sec ut i o n . . . . Alth o ugh th er e 8 i s a p r e s u m p ti on that a p r os e c u torex e r c i s e s ind e p e nd e nt j u d g m e nt in d e c i d i ng w hethe rto i ni ti a te and 9 co n t i nue a crim i n al pro ceedi n g, anarrestin g o f f i cer may be h el d l i abl e f

o r m al i ci o us pro s ecuti o nw h en 10 a po l i ce o f

f i cer crea t es f

al s e in f o rm at i o nl i k ely

t o in f luence a j ury ’s deci s i o nan d f o rw ards th at 11 i n f

o rmat i o nt o pro sec ut o rs. ” (in t ern al quo t at i o nmark s o mi t t ed) ). 12 M o reo v er, t h e di ct a h as n o appli cat i o n h ere, wh ere t h e “ i

n dependen

t j udgmen t ” co n s i s t ed 1 3 o f

no mo r e t han ve r i f

y i ng s o me o f

t he a ll e g e d l

y f a l s e i nf o rmat i o n p r o vi d e d

by t he o f f i c e r s . T he 1 4 e vi d e nc e a

bo ut whi c h P a

ng i li nan t e s t i f i e d

—t he s e c ur i

t y c ame r a f o o t a g e , t he 9 1 1 c a ll s , and t he 1 5 bo o k i

ng p ho t o s
— c o u l d

no t o n i t s o wn j u s t i f

y a p r o s e c ut i o n, a

bs e nt t he i

nf o rmat i o n p r o vi d e d

by 16 Ra

m o s and Ri v era. A cco rdi

n gl y , t h e pro s ecut o rs’ b eli ef

t h at t h e o f

f i cers were credi

b l e, an d t h at 1 7 t he p ho t o g r a

p hs and 9 1 1 c a ll s w e r e c o ns i s t e nt w i t h t he o f f i c e r s ’ ve r s i o n o f

e ve nt s , c o u l d

no t have 1 8 r e li e v e d

th e of f i c e r s of c a u s a l r e s p on s i b i li ty . I t f oll ow s th at te s ti

mon y a s to th at b e li e f

w a s n ot 19 rel ev an

t t o an y el em en t t h at A ppell an t s n eede d t o pro v e. 20 A ddi

t i o n all y , t o t h e ex

t en t t h at a pro s ecut o r’s deci s i o n t o co n t i n ue a pro s ecut i o n

do es 2 1 r e p r e s e n

t an a c c e p t an c e o f ap o lic e o ffic e r ’ s v e r s io n o f e v e n t s , t h e c h ar a c t e ro f t h at imp lic it 2 2 v o u c h i

n g i s f ar d i f f e re n t f rom t h at o f t h e t e s t i mo n y a dm i t t e d i n t h i s c a s e . It i s o n e t h i

n g f o r a j ury21 1 t o i

n f e r t h at a p ros e c ut o r t o o k

a c a s e t o t ri a l

b e c a u s e s h e t h o u g h

t t h e re w a s a

b a s i s f o r t h e c a s e . 2 It i s an o t h er t h i

n g en t i rel y f o r a pr o s ecut o r t o s t at e t h at s h e b eli ev ed t h at ph o t o graph s i n ev i den ce 3 “ co rr o b o rat ed t h e ev en t s . . . reco un

t ed b y t h e po li ce o f

f i cers , and .
. . act uall

y s t ren gt h en ed [t h e] 4 p r os e c uti on , ” J
. A
. 5 0 4 , a b e li e f , s i g ni f i c an tl y , th at th e p r os e c utor

w ou l d n ot b e p e rm

i tte d to s tate 5 at t h e underl

y i n g cri m i n al t ri al
. A n d i t i s an o t h er t h i

n g agai n f o r a pr o s ecut o r t o s t at e t h at s h e h ad 6 no “r e a s o n t o be li e ve t hat any t hi ng [ t he c o m

p l a i ni ng o f f i c e r s t o l d he r ] w a s no t a c c ur at e , ” J
. A. 7 5 0 5
. S u c h

a s t at e me n t g o e s w e ll b e yo n d

t h e d e t a ils o f t h e o ffic e r s ’ a c c o un t an d n e c e s s ar ily 8 r e p r e s e n

t s s u p p o rt fo rt h e irg e n e r a l c h ar a c t e rfo rh o n e s t y. 9 F urt h e rmo r e , A p p e lle e s ’ t h e o ry mi s un d e r s t an d s t h e fun c t io n o f as c r e e ning p r o s e c ut o rin 1 0 r e l at i o n t o a

ma li c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n c l a i m . T he p r o s e c ut o r ’s a c t i o ns d o no t s u p e r s e d e t he 1 1 c om

p l a i ni n g of f i c e r ’ s a c ti on s ; th e y

onl y d e te rm i n e wh e th e rth e of

f i c e r ’ s a c ti on s c om

e to 1 2 fru it io n

—t h at is , wh e t h e rt h e o ffic e rc o mmi t t e d t h e t o rt o f ma lic io u s p r o s e c ut io n , o rme r e ly 13 attempted

to p r os e c ute ma li c i ou s l

y . N ota b l y , i n thi s c a s e , B r an d on

d e c i d e d n ot t o p r os e c ute 1 4 H i g g e n

b o t t o m ; t h at d e c i s i o n

i s n o t re l e v an

t t o t h e qu e s t i o n

o f wh e t h e r t h e c o m

p l a i ni n g o f f i c e rs 1 5 w e r e t e lli

ng t he t rut h r e g ar d i

ng H i g g e nbo t t o m ’s c o nd

u c t . S i m il ar l y , a p r o s e c ut o r ’s d e c i s i o n to 16 pur

s ue a pros ecution ha s no mo r e r e l e vanc e t o t he c o m p l a i ni ng o f f i c e r ’s c r e d i

bi li t y t han t he 17 i m pli ci t rel ev an ce s h ared b y

all deci s i o n s t o pro s ecut e. 18 Im

po rt an t l y , t h e rul e t h at A

ppell ees urge us t o ado pt wo ul d pl ace i n appro pri at e pres s ures 1 9 o n bo t h p r o s e c ut o r s and p l a i nt i f f s . I f a ll c a s e s o f ma li c i o u s p r o s e c ut i o n w e r e t ak e n t o t r i a l , and 20 pro s ecut o rs were c all ed t o t es t i f y ab o ut wh y t h ey h ad o ri gi n all y pursued c ert ai

n ch arges , t h en 21 pro s ecut o rs m

i gh t b e s ub j ect ed t o great , t h o ugh

perh aps t aci

t , press ure f

ro m ci t i es and po li ce 22 o f

f i cers t o mai

n t ai n ev en a we ak pro s ecut i o n

i n o rdert o un dercut an

y s ub s equen

t mali ci o us22 1 p r os e c uti on

c l a i m . S i m i l ar l y , p l a i n ti f f s wh o h av e l e g i

ti mate c l a i m s of b oth ma li c i ou s p r os e c uti on 2 and

o t h ert o rt s, su ch as f

al se arr est ( whi ch al

mo st al way s t r avel s i

n mal i ci o u s p r o sec ut i o n ’s 3 s i deca

r) , ef f ect i v el y wo ul d b e f

o rced t o f o rgo t h ei r mali ci o us pro s ecut i o n

cl ai m s . Ot h erwi s e, such 4 p la in

t iffs w o u ld

r is k e x p o s ing a ll o f t h e ir

c la ims t o h ig h ly p r e

ju d ic ia l t e s t imo n

y fr o m s e e ming ly 5 r e p ut a

bl e s o ur c e s
—t e s t i

mo ny a d i s t r i c t j u d g e w o u l d

no t c o ns i d e ra dm

i t t i ng i n t he a bs e nc e o f t he 6 ma li c i o u s p ros e c ut i o n c l a i m . 7 Fo ra ll

t he s e r e a s o ns , w e ho l d

t hat p r o s e c ut o r s ’ o p i

ni o ns a s t o p r o ba

bl e c a u s e and 8 co m

pl ai ni n g o f f i cers ’ credi

b i li t y are i rr el ev an t i n v i rt uall y all cas es i n v o l v i n g cl ai m s o f mali ci o us 9 p r o s e c ut io n . I n

s u c h c a s e s , d is t r ic t c o urt s r e ma in b o un d b y t h e ru le s o f e v id e n c e t h at n o rma lly 1 0 g o ve rn o p i

ni o n t e s t i mo ny , and

a c c o r d i ng l y t he D i s t r i c t C o urt e rr e d

i n a ll o w i ng P e t e r s o n and

t he 11 pro s ecut o rs t o t es t i f y t o t h e o f f i cers ’ credi

b i li t y and t o t h e exi s t en ce o f

pro b ab l e ca

us e. 12 D. Ha r

mless Error

Anal y s is 1 3 In

t h i s c a s e , e ver y

f a c torthat the C ou r t cons i d e r s in d e te r m i ning w hethe ran evi d e nti a r y ru l i ng 14 w a s har m l e s s cou ns e l s in f a vor of a new tri a l . F i r s t, the tes ti m ony b ore on the tw o m os t im p ort a nt 15 i s s ues inth e case: w h eth er o r n o tR am o s an d R i v era w ere credibl e, an d w h eth er o r n o tth ey h ad 16 pr o babl e c a use ( a ) t o a r r e stCa mer o na n d Hi gge nbo t t o m a n d ( b) t o pr o se c ut e Ca mer o n . I n de e d, 17 acco rdi n g to th e j ury ch arge, th e o n ly

co n t ested el em en to f

th e f al s e arrest cl ai m s w as “w h eth er O f f i cer 18 R i ver a and O f

f i c e rR a m os had p r ob a b l e ca u s e ,” w hi l e the only i s s u e s in the m a l i c i ou s p r os e c u ti on 19 cl ai m w ere (a) w h eth er R am o s an d R i v era h ad p ro bab l e caus e an d (b ) w h eth er th ey act ed w i thm al i ce 20 ( w h i c h , th e c h a r ge st a t e d, c o ul d b e in f e r r e d i f th e o f f i c e r s “ a c t e d wi th o utpr o babl e c a use ” )
. J
. A. 65 8, 21 6 6 4 . S i m i l a r ly , P a ng i l i nan’ s and P e te r s on’s tes ti m ony that the s e c u r i ty

ca m e r a p hotos w e r e cons i s te nt 22 w i thth e o f

f i c e r s’ a c c o un t s unmi st a k a bly bo r e o nth e sa me se to f

c ruc i a lqu e st i o n s.Fo r e xam ple , Riv e r a h ad said i n h is o r igi n al c o m pla in ts an d at t h e c r im in al tr ia l th at Cam e r o n h ad bo th h er 7 h a n d s i n t h e wi n d o w ; a tt h e c i v i l t r i a l , h e sa i dt h a to n l y h er r i g h th a n dw a s i n t h e c a r . Ra m o s, b y co n t r a st , t est i f

i ed atthe c iv il tria l th atb o th o f C ame r o n ’ s han d s w e r e in the windo w . 23 1 S e c o n d , th e im p r o p e rt e s t im o ny w a s n o ts im p ly c u m u la t ive o rc o r r o b o r a t ive
. R a th e r , it 2 p r o v id e d s tr o n g e x t e r n a l va li d a t ion fo rp r o p o s it ion s th a to th e r w is e w o u ld h a v e c o m e in o n ly f r om the 3 A p p e l l e e s ’ m ou ths . I nd e e d , i t tol d the j u r y w hat c onclu s i ons tw o p r os e c u tor s and a p ol i c e l i e u te nant 4 had d r a w n o n the p r i m a r y i s s u e s of the ca s e , te s ti m ony

that c ou l d har d ly

b e cons i d e r e d d u p l i c a ti ve of 5 the other tes ti m ony the j u r y hea r d . T he te s ti m ony

i s p a r ti c u l a r ly

s i g ni f i c a nt b e c a u s e i t ca m e f

r om 6 o s t en s ibl y

n eutralgo v ern m en tact o rs , w h o s e o pi n i o n s , un ders t an dab ly , w i l lo f t engreatly

in f luence 7 j urors. Se e U

ni t e d S tat e s v . G ri nage , 390 F
. 3d 746 , 752 (2d Ci r. 2004). 8 Th i r d, A ppe l l e e s ma de use o f th e t e st i mo ny

inth e i ro pe n i n g st a t e menta n d insumma t i o n . To 9 be sur e , a s A ppe l l e e s a r gue , th e se w e r e o n ly “ br i e f r e f e r e n c e s. ” A ppe l l e e s’ Br
. 40
. Nev e r th e l e ss, 10 co unsel ’s argu m en t s di d d ri v e h o m e th e in co rrecti dea th atB ran don , ra th er th anR am o s an d R i v era, 11 h a d “ init ia t e d ” th e p r o c e e d ing , a n d e m p h a s iz e d P a n g il ina n ’ s ina d m is s ib le a n d irr e le v a n tb e li e f “ th a tit 12 w a s appr o pr i a t e t o c o n t i nue th e pr o se c ut i o na ga i n stM s. Ca mer o n . ” J
. A. 14 4. 13 F our th , Ap p el l ees ’ ca s e w as n ot p ar ti cu l ar ly

s tron g . I t es s enti al ly

b oi l ed d ow n to a cre d ib i l i ty 14 c ontes t b e tw e e n the of f i c e r s and the A p p e l l a nts . A p p e l l e e s ’ s ta te m e nts had cha ng e d ov e rtim e , a nd 15 d is a g r e e d w ithe a c ho th e rin s o m e m a t e r ia l r e s p e c t s . Ins u c hac a s e , t e s t im o ny fr o m th r e e “ im p a r t ia l” 7 16 l aw en f

o rcem en tagen t s th atth e o f f i cers w ere t o be bel i ev ed i s su rely h i ghly prej ud i ci al
. 17 F o r al l

t h es e reas o n s , we c an

n o t s ay wi t h co n f i den ce t h at t h e erro n eo us l y adm i t t ed 18 t es t i

m o n y was h arm

l es s . A cco rdi

n gl y , we m us t v acat e t h e v erdi ct and remand t o t h e Di s t ri ct 1 9 C o urt fo ra

n e wt r ia l. 20 E
. Tes timony on Retrial 21 W

h i l e m uch o f t h e ch al l engedt est i

mo n y was i n admi ssi b l e, n o t ev ery

t h i n g t h at t h eseT h e qu est i o n o f w h eth er t h e ex cl usion of a n y t es t i m on y

g i ven du r i n g t h i s t r i a l wou l dh a ve be en a n abu s e of 8 d i s c re t i o n i s no tb e f

o re u s . I n s t a t i ng t ha ts o m e t e s t i m o ny “ s e e m s ” ap p rop ri a t e , w e d o no tm e a n t o e x p re s s a ny o pi n i o n o n w

h e t h e r th a ttesti m o n y

c o ul d o r sh o ul d b e pr e c l ud e d (u n der R ul e 403 o r o t h e r w i se ), b ut o n l y sugg e st t ha ts u c h d e c i s i o ns l i k e l y f a l l wi t hi n t he D i s t ri c tC o u rt ’ s d i s c re t i o n. 24 1 w i tn e s s e s s a i d

s h ou l d b e p r oh i b i te d u p on r e tr i a l
. I t i s th e r e f

or e w orth n oti n g , i n th e i n te r e s t of 2 j udi ci al

eco n o m y , whi ch part i cul ar pi ece s o f

t es t i mo n y are i n adm i s s i b l e, an d whi ch

t h e Di s t ri ct 3 C ourt h a s d i s c r e ti on to a dm i t. 4 M o s t o b v i o u s l y , t e s t i mo n y t h at a t h i rd p art y (s u c h a s a p ros e c ut o r or ap o li c e s u p e rv i s o r) 5 f oun d th e d e f e n d an ts to b e c r e d i

b l e s h ou l d

b e e x c l u d e d
. S i m i l ar l y , th e r e i s n o j u s ti f

i c ati on f or 6 te s ti

m on y th at an y b od y b ut th e d e f

e n d an ts th e m s e l v e s b e li e v e d

th at p r ob a

b l e c a u s e e x i s te d

to 7 arre s t o r p ros e c ut e C ame ron an d H i g g e n b o t t o m . 8 A s t o L i eut en an t Pet erso n , h e t es t i f

i ed ab o ut h i s perso n al

o b s erv at i o n s wh en

h e arriv ed at 9 th e s c e n e of

th e i n c i d e n t; s u c h te s ti mon y s e e m s e n ti r e l y a p p r op r i ate . H e a l s o te s ti f i e d th at, 8 1 0 d ur i ng t he s e ve n mo nt hs p r e c e d i ng t he i nc i d e nt , i n whi c h he s u

p e rvi s e d O f f i c e r s R amo s and 1 1 Riv e r a , h e d id

n o t “ s e e [ R amo s ] e n g a g e in an y t yp e o f in a

p p r o p r iat e b e h av io r . ” J
. A
. 3 5 1
. T h is 1 2 see m s r el evantt o A p p el l ant s’ Mone ll

cl aim , as it g o es t o t h e qu est i o n o f whet h erRamo s’s 13 s uperv i s o rs were “ f ace d wi t h a pat t ern o f m i s co n duct and [di d] n o t h i

n g. ” R eynoldsv. Giuli ani , 14 506 F
. 3d 183, 192 (2d Ci r. 2007). Pet erso n ’ s t es t i mo n y t h at h e “t h o ugh

t t h at [t h e po li ce] h ad 1 5 p r ob a

b l e c a u s e to e f f e c t th e arr e s t” an d

th at h e h a d

n o “r e a s on

to d ou b t th e of f i c e r s ’ a c c oun

t of 16 t h e f

act s t h at day , ” J. A
. 35 3, o n t h e o t h erh an d, sh o ul d n o t b e per m i t t ed upo n r et r i al
. T h e f

i r st 17 co m

m en t b ears o n n ei t h er t h e Mone ll

i s s u e n o r t h e f

a l s e arre s t an d

ma li c i o u s p ros e c ut i o n

c l a i m s . 18 T h e s eco n d co m

m en t , whi l e i t do es i n s o me wa y s rel at e t o t h e Mone ll

i s s u e , e xt e nd s f

arbe y o nd 1 9 P e te r s on ’ s p e r s on a l ob s e rv ati on s of

R amos ’ s b e h av i oran d

d i s c u s s e s d i

r e c tl y P e te r s on ’ s op i

ni onW e ha v e no o c c a s i o n t o d e c i d e w he t he r c o m m e nt s s u c h a s t he s e , o r a ny o t he r s p e c i f

i c s t a t e m e nt s m a d e du ri ng t he 9 c o ur s e o f th e tr ial, w o uld

h av e b e e n s uf

f ic ie n t o n th e i r

o wn to r e qu ir e v ac atur ; w e me n tio n th e m h e r e me r e ly to gu ideth e D is tr ic t Cour t o n r e tr ial. S imilar ly , b e c aus e App e llan ts did ob j e c t toth e v as t maj o r ity

o f th e pro b le matic t est i m o n y , w e n eed n o tdet er m i n e w h eth er t h o se st a t em en t s t o w h i ch t h ey di dn o tob

je ctw o u l dh a v e c o n st i tu t ed r eve r s i bl e e r r or un d er p l a i n er r or r evi ew. 25 1 o f he rc r e d i bi li t y . N o rc an w e s e e any

r e a s o n f o ra ll o w i ng P e t e r s o n t o t e s t i f

y r e g ar d i ng t he 9 2 s e c ur it y c ame r a

p h o t o s , wh ic h

h e s aw“ [ a ] lo n g t ime a ft e rt h is in c id e n t h a p p e n e d
. ” J
. A
. 3 5 9
. H is 3 o p i

ni o n o f ho wt he p i c t ur e s s ho u l d

be i nt e r p r e t e d i s e nt i r e l y i rr e l e vant , and

hi s t e s t i mo ny o n t he 4 sub

j ect add ed n o t h i

n g t h at t h e j ury

co ul d n o t see f

o ri t sel f b y l o o ki n g at t h e ph o t o s. 5 A s to A

D A B r an d on , h e rte s ti

mon y r e g ar d i n g th e s u b s tan c e of

h e ri n te r a c ti on s w i

th 6 O f f i c e rRi v e r a s e e m s e n ti r e l y p r op e r . H e rc om

me n ts a s to wh e th e rs h e h a d

an y r e a s on n ot t o 7 b e li e v e O f

f i c e rRi v e r a ’ s a c c oun

t, a n d wh e th e rs h e b e li e v e d

th at p r ob a

b l e c a u s e e x i s te d

to arr e s t or 8 c h ar g e A

p p e lla n t s , h o w e v e r , s h o u ld

b e av o id e d

o n r e t r ia l. R e g ar d ing B r an d o n ’ s t e s t imo n y t h at it 9 was her

deci s i o n t o pro s ecut e C am

ero n , and t h at Ri

v era h ad n o “ s ay

i n wh et h er o r n o t a cri

m i n al 1 0 p r os e c uti on

w a s i ni ti ate d ” an d

th at Ri v e r a d i d n ot “ ur g e [ h e r ] , e n c our a g e [ h e r ] , or p r e s s [ h e r ] to 1 1 p r oc e e d

w i th th e c r i m i n a l p r os e c uti on , ” J
. A
. 2 7 1
- 7 2 , w e d o not t h i n k th at thi s te s ti

mon y n e e d s to 1 2 b e p r e c l

u d e d

— i f , th at i s , i t i s a c c om

p ani e d b y th e D i s tr i c t C ourt’ s c l e aran d c orr e c t i n s tru c ti on 13 t h at Ra

m o s ’ s and Ri

v era’ s co n duct s uf

f i ced a s a m

at t er o f l aw t o “ i ni t i at e” pro s ecut i o n . W

h et h er 1 4 t h e p o li ce o f

f i ce r s ag g r essiv el

y so u g h t p r o sec ut i o n , o ro n l

y al l o we d t h e D i st r i ct A

t t o rn ey ’s 15 h andli

n g o f t h e ca s e t o run

i t s o wn co urse, se ems pro b at i

v e o n t h e i m po rt an t ques t i o n o f wh et h er 1 6 t h e o ffic e r s a c t e d w it h ma lic e , an d

s o t h e D is t r ic t C o urt w o u ld b e w it h in it s d is c r e t io n

t o p e rmit 1 7 t h e s ame t e s t imo n y o n r e t r ia l. 18 F i

n all y , as t o ADA

Pan gi li n an , s h e s h o ul d n o t b e perm i t t ed t o t es t i f

y t o h er l egal 1 9 c o nc l

u s i o ns a bo ut t he c a s e , o rt o he ro p i ni o ns o f t he o f f i c e r s ’ c r e d i

bi li t y . As w i t h AD A B r and o n,A lth o u g h the y c it e R u le1 0 0 4 , Ap p e ll ants d o no t ar g u e that Ap p e ll e e s “ lo s t o r d e s tro ye d[ the o r ig inals ] in b ad 10 f ai th,” as w o u ld

b e ne c e s s ary

toe x c lu d e the te s ti mo n y o n “b e s t e v id e n c e ” g r o u n d s . S ee Fe d. R . E v id. 1004(1). 26 1 we s ee no t h i

n g i m pro per i n h er t es t i f y i n g ab o ut h er i

n t eract i o n s wi

t h Ra mo s and Ri

v era i n s o f ar as 2 t h e y

a ll o wt h e j ury

t o drawa

p p ropri at e i

n f e re n c e s o n e w ay

o r an o t h e r a s t o t h e o f

f i c e rs ’ ma li c e . 3 It al s o wo ul d appea r t o b e perm

i s s i b l e f o r P angi li n an t o t es t i f y as t o t h e content

o f t h e 9 1 1 c a lls 4 and t h e b o o ki

n g ph o t o —Ca

mero n ’ s dem

eano r an d s t at em

en t s i n t h e f o rmer, and h er appea

ran ce 5 i n t h e l at t er—as t h e ph o t o and t h e t apes o f t h e ca ll s are n o l o n ger i

n ex i s t en ce a

n d Pan gi li n an 6 p e rs o n a ll

y o b s e rv e d t h e m . See Fe d
. R. E vi d
. 1 0 0 4 ; Gl ew v. Cigna Grou

p I ns. , 590 F
. Supp. 2d 7 3 9 5 , 4 1 3 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. 2 0 0 8 ) ( “O r a l t e s t i m o ny ha s be e n a dm

i t t e d a s s e c o nd ary

e vi d e nc e , i f

t he 8 o ri gi

n al i s l o s t o r dest ro yed.”)
. But s h e s h o ul d n o t b e all o wed t o s t at e co n cl us i o n s s uch

as h er 10 9 o p i

ni o n s t h at t h e 9 1 1 c a ll s “ c o rrob o rat e d ” t h e o f f i c e rs ’ v e rs i o n

o f e v e n t s , t h at t h e s e c uri

t y c ame ra 1 0 p h o t o s “ a c t u a lly

s t r e n g t h e n e d

[ t h e ] p r o s e c ut io n , ” an d

t h at t h e b o o k ing p h o t o “ s u p p o rt e d t o s o me 11 ex

t en t co n t i n ued pro s ecut i o n

o f t h e ca s e.” J.A
. 504-05. 12 I I I . Obstr ucti ng Gover nm ental Adm inistr ati on I nstr ucti on 13 W e r ev i ew ch al l en ges t o a di st r i ct co ur t ’s j ury i n st ruct i o n s de novo
. Go r do n v . N.Y

. Ci ty 14 B d. of

Educ. , 2 3 2 F. 3 d

1 1 1 , 1 1 5 ( 2 d

C i r . 2 0 0 0 )
. “A j ury

i ns t ru c t i o n i s e rr o ne o u s i f

i t m i s l e a d s t he 15 j ury

as t o t h e co rr ectl egal

s t andard o r do es n o t adequa t el y i n f o rm t h e j ury o n t h e l aw.” LNC 16 In v es tm e n ts, In c . v . F ir s t F id e li ty Ba n k , N .A. , 173 F
. 3d 454, 460 (2d Ci r. 1999) ( i

n t ern al 1 7 qu o t at i o n

mark s o m

i t t e d ). 1 8 D ur i

n g th e j ury

c h ar g e , th e D i s tr i c t C ourt i n s tru c te d th e j ury th at th e of

f e n s e of 1 9 o b s t ru c t i

n g g o v e rn

me n t a l a dm i ni s t rat i o n w a s c o m m i t t e d b y i n t e rf e ri n g w i t h “ an o f f i c i a l f un c t i o n ,” 20 wi

t h o ut def i ni n g t h at t erm . A

ppell an t s co n t end n o w, as t h ey

di d b elo w, t h at an

arr es t i s o n l

y an 21 “ o f

f i ci al f un ct i o n ” under New Yo rk l aw if it is law f ul

—t h at i s , i f

i t i s ma d e w i

t h p rob a b l e c a u s e .App e l l a n t s do n o ta r gu e th a te i t h e r e r r o r in th e j ur y c h a r ge wo ul d h a v e w a r r a n t e d r e v e r sa l , a n d w e do n o tso 11 h o ld; w e o n ly

addr e s s th e j ur y

c h ar geb e c aus e b o th is s ue s may ar is e if th e c as e pro c e e ds to r e tr ial. 27 1 Ac c o r d i

ng l y , t he y ar g u e , t he D i s t r i c t C o urt s ho u l d have i ns t ru c t e d t he j ury , r e g ar d i

ng 2 Hi g g enb o t t o m ’s f

al se arr est cl aim , t h at “ [ i ] f
. . . p r o b abl e c au se w as l ac k i n g f o rMs. Camer o n ’s 3 arr e s t, th e n

d e f e nd an ts ’ a c ti on s w e r e n ot auth or iz e d b y l awan d [ th e j ury ’ s ] v e r d i c t m

u s t b e f or 4 Ms. H i gg en

b o t t o m . ” J. A
. 53
. A l

t h o ug h t h e Di st r i ct Co ur t was r i ght t o r ej ect t h e pr eci se 5 f o rm u l at i o n t h at A p p e ll an t s re qu e s t e d , A

p p e ll an t s ’ un d e rs t an d i

n g o f N e wY o rk

l awi s c o rre c t . 6 T h e r e fo r e , if

o n r e t r ia l Ap p e lle e s ar g u e t h at H ig g e n b o t t o m’ s arr e s t w a s ju s t if ie d o n t h e b a s is o f a 7 ch arge o f

o b s t ruct i o n

o f go v ern men t al adm i ni s t rat i o n , t h en

t h e j ury s h o ul d b e i

n s t ruct ed t h at t h at 8 b a s is fo rarr e s t c o u ld o n ly be law fu l if C ame r o n ’ s arr e s t w a s it s e lf law fu l. 11 9 Un der New Yo rk l aw, o b s t ruct i n g go v ern

men t al adm i ni s t rat i o n h as f o ur el em en t s : “ (1) 10 prev en

t i o n o r at t em pt t o prev en

t (2) a pub li c s erv an

t f ro m perf o rmi n g (3) an o f f i ci al f un ct i o n (4) 11 b y

mean s o f i n t i m i dat i o n , f o rce o r i n t erf eren ce.” Lennon v. M

iller , 6 6 F .3 d

4 1 6 , 4 2 4 (2 d

C i r. 1 2 1 9 9 5 ) ; s ee als o N.Y. Pen al L aw § 195.05. In

New Y o rk, h o wev er, f

o r an arr es t t o b e “ an

o f f i ci al 1 3 f un c t i o n ,” i

t m u s t b e l aw f

u l
. See, e.g. , People v

. Perez , 47 A
. D.3d 1192, 1193-94, 851 N.Y. S. 2d 1 4 7 4 7 , 7 4 9 ( App
. D i v. 4 t h De p ’t 2 0 0 8 ) ; People v

. Greene , 221 A
. D.2d 559, 560, 623 N.Y. S. 2d 1 5 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 ( App
. D i v. 2 d D e p ’t 1 9 9 5 ) ; cf

. People v

. Steve ns on , 286 N.E
. 2d 445, 448, 31 N.Y. 2d 1 6 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ( “ [ T ] h e c r i me of r e s i s ti n g arr e s t d oe s n ot oc c uri f th e arr e s t i s i ll e g a l

or 1 7 un l aw f

u l
. ” )
. A p p e ll e e s e s s e n

ti a ll y ar g u e th at anyarr e s t , law fu l o ro t h e rw is e , b y a p o lic e o ffic e ris 1 8 an

“ o f f i c i a l f un c t i o n .” B ut t h i s p ropos i t i o n f i n d s n o s u p p o rt i n N e wY o rk

c a s e l aw . 19 A cco rdi

n gl y , i f Ra mo s and Ri

v era’ s arr es t o f

Ca mero n was n o t l awf

ul —e.g. , i f t h ey kn ew 2 0 t hat t he y

d i d no t p o s s e s s p r o ba

bl e c a u s e t o arr e s t he rf

o rany c r i me
—t he n t he y

c o u l d no t have 2 1 p r o b a

b le c a u s e t o arr e s t H ig g e n

b o t t o m fo ro b s t ru c t ing g o v e rn me n t a l a dminis t r at io n . O n

r e t r ia l,28 1 an i

ns t ru c t i o n e xp l a i

ni ng t hi s l e g a l

nu anc e t o t he j ury

w o u l d be a p p r o p r i at e . T hat s a i d , t he 2 s p e c i f

i c i n s t ru c t i o n t h at A p p e ll an t s re qu e s t e d

at t ri a l w a s n o t qu i

t e c o rre c t . R amo s an d

Ri v e ra 3 l e g i

t i mat e l y c o u l d have arr e s t e d

H i g g e nbo t t o m

f o rd i s o r d e r l

y c o nd u c t e ve n i f

t he y d i d no t have 4 p rob a

b l e c a u s e t o arre s t h e r f

o r t h e s e p arat e o f

f e n s e o f o b s t ru c t i n g g o v e rn

me n t a l a dm i ni s t rat i o n . 5 SeeN.Y. Pen al

L aw § 240.20. A s a res ul t , a m o re appro pri at e i

n s t ruct i o n wi t h respe ct t o an 6 arr est b ased o n

o b st ruct i o n

o f go v ern men t admi ni st r at i o n m i ght r ead al o n g t h e f

o ll o wi n g l i n es: 7 “ F o r an

arre s t t o b e an

o f f i c i a l f un c t i o n , i t m u s t b e l aw f

u l an d s u p p o rt e d b y p rob a b l e c a u s e . 8 T he r e f

o r e , i f t he O f f i c e r s d i d no t have p r o ba

bl e c a u s e t o arr e s t M s . C ame r o n, t he y c o u l d no t have 9 h ad p r o b ab l e cause t o arr est Ms. H i gg en b o t t o m f o ro b st ruct i

n g t h ei ref f o rt s t o ef f ect Ms. 1 0 C ame r o n’s arr e s t . ” N o t hi ng w e have s a i d

he r e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t he j ury

c har g e i s i

nt e nd e d t he r e by 11 t o li

m i t wh at A ppell ees may

prese n t as b as es f

o r t h e arrest o f

Hi ggen b o t t o m , and t h e Di s t ri ct 1 2 C o urt i s o bvi o u s l y f r e e o n r e t r i a l

t o a c c o m mo d at e i t s c har g e t o what e ve rt he o r i e s o f li a bi li t y and 1 3 d e f

e n s e th e p arti e s may

p r e s e n t. 14 I V. P uni ti ve Dam ages I nstr ucti on 15 A

ppell an t s ’ f i n al cl ai m ch all enges t h e Di s t ri ct Co urt ’ s deci s i o n n o t t o i n s t ruct t h e j ury

t h at 1 6 i t c o u l d c o n s i d e r aw ard i

n g p uni t i v e d ama g e s i f

i t f o un d f o r A p p e ll an t s . W e agree th atth i s w as 17 erro r. To w arran tanin s tructi o n , “ [a]l lth ata party n eeds t o sho w i s th atth ere i s some ev i dence 18 s up port i n g th e th eo ry beh i n d th e in s tructi o nso th ata qu esti o no f f actm ay be pres en t ed to th e j ury .” 19 An ders on v. Br an en , 1 7 F .3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 7 (2 d C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). A p u nitive da m ag es instru cti on i s ap p rop ri ate 20 w h e nth e p la int iffs h a v e p r o d u c e d e v id e n c e th a t“ th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s c o n d u c tis
. . . m o t iva t e d b y e v il 21 m oti ve orintent, or w hen i t involves re c kl e s s or c a l l ou s ind i f f e r e nce to the fed e r a l ly

p r otec te d ri g hts of 22 other s ,” or, in o ther w ord s , w hen the p l a i nti f f s have p r od u c e d evi d e nce of “a p os i ti ve e l e m e nt of29 1 co n s ci o us w ro n gd o i n g” o r “m al i ce.” New W i ndso r V ol unte e r A m bulanc e Corps. , I nc . v . M e y e rs , 44 2 2 F
. 3 d 1 0 1 , 1 2 1
- 2 2 ( 2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) ( int e r n a l q u o t a t ion m a r k s o m itt e d )
. T h e p la int iffs ’ e v id e n c e n e e d o n ly 3 b e enou g h “to p e r m i t the f a c tf i nd e rto i nferth a tth e r e s p o n s ib le o ff ic ia l w a s m o t iva t e d b y m a li c e o re v il 4 i n t en to r th ath e act ed w i threck l ess o r cal l o us in di f f eren ce.” I

d. a t122 (e mp h asi s added)
. 5 I nden y i n g Ap pel l an t s ’ requ est f o r th e in s tructi o n , th e D i s tri ctC o urt co n clud ed th atth ere w as 6 “ n o e v id e n c e th a t[ R a m o s a n d R ive r a ’ s ] a c t ion s w e r e w a n t o n , m a li c iou s o rr e c k le s s . ” J
. A
. 4 9 7
. B u tit 7 i s l o n g-s ett l ed th at“th e l ack o f pro bab l e caus e may

gi v e ri s e t o anin f

eren ce o f m al i ce.” M

or r is s ey v. 8 Nat ’ l

M ari t i m e U

ni on , 54 4 F. 2d 19, 29 ( 2d Ci r . 19 76) ( quo t i n g Pr o s s er o n T o r ts § 119 a t84 8- 49 9 (1 9 7 1 ed .)) ; se e al so N. O i l Co. v . So c ony M

obi l O i l Co. , 3 4 7 F .2 d 8 1 , 8 4 (2 d C i r. 1 9 6 5 ); Reistererv. 10 Lee Su m , 94 F . 343 , 346 (2d C i r. 189 9). In t h i s c a s e , A

p p e ll an t s a ll e g e d t h at R amo s an d

Ri v e ra 11 kn ew t h at t h ey

l acke d pro b ab l e ca

us e t o s us pectCa

mero n o r Hi ggen

b o t t o m o f an y cri me but 12 arr es t ed t h em

an y way , and t h en

pro cee ded t o pro v i de f

al s e i n f o rmat i o n t o t h e B ro n

x Di s t ri ct 1 3 A t t o rn e y ’ s O f

f i c e t h at l e d

t o C ame ron ’ s p ros e c ut i o n . W hi l e a j u r y w a s f r e e to r e j e c t thi s ver s i on of 14 ev en t s , th e ev i dence at tri alw as at l east mi n i m al ly su f f i ci en tt o su pp o rti t . H ad th e j ury acce pted 15 A p p e ll a n t s ’ a c c o u n t , it c o u ld h a v e r e a d ily inf e r r e d th a tR a m o s a n d R ive r a w e r e c o n s c iou s o f th e ir 16 al l eged w ro n gd o i n g an d h en ce ac t ed m al i ci o us ly . Acco rdi n gl y , aqu esti o no f f actas t o m al i ce w as 17 p r e s e n t e d t o th e ju r y. A n d t h i s ma d e a

p uni t i v e d ama g e s i

n s t ru c t i o n a p p ropri at e . See Ander

s on , 18 17 F
. 3d at 557. 19 CO NC L USI ON 2 0 W e AF F I RMth e D i s tr i c t C ourt’ s d e ni a l of A p p e ll an ts ’ R u l e 5 0 motion , b ut V A C A T E the 21 j ud gm en tan d R EM AN D f o r a n ew tri alo nApp el l an t s ’ R ul e 59 m o t i o n .