Opinion ID: 46
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Verdict and Appeal

Text: On September 29, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees on all counts. The District Court subsequently denied Appellants' motions for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 or for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and entered judgment in favor of Appellees. Appellants filed a timely appeal. On appeal, Appellants make four arguments. First, they argue that the security camera photos definitively establish that the events did not happen as Appellees describe them. Even though the photos were only taken every two seconds, Appellants contend that they still blatantly contradicted Ramos and Rivera's version of the incident, for the photos allegedly show that Cameron never put a hand through the police car's window. Because summary judgment is appropriate where [i]ncontrovertible evidence ... so utterly discredits the opposing party's version [of events] that no reasonable juror could fail to believe the version advanced by the moving party, Zellner v. Summerlin, 494 F.3d 344, 371 (2d Cir.2007), Appellants argue, the District Court erred in denying their Rule 50 motion. Second, they claim that the District Court abused its discretion in allowing Pangilinan, Brandon, and Peterson to testify (a) to Ramos's and Rivera's credibility, (b) to the declarants' belief that there was probable cause for the arrests and prosecution, and (c) to the consistency of documentary evidence with the parties' allegations. They argue that this testimony was irrelevant, improperly stated a legal conclusion, vouched for the officers' credibility, and improperly opined on the evidence before the jury. See Fed.R.Evid. 401, 403, 701. Additionally, they contend, Pangilinan should not have been permitted to describe the contents of the arrest photographs and 911 calls, which were no longer available at the time of trial. See Fed. R.Evid. 403, 1002. Appellants also maintain that these errors were not harmless, as the Appellees' case was weak and the improper testimony went to the central issues of the case: probable cause and the credibility of Ramos and Rivera. In response, Appellees assert primarily that this testimony was relevant to Cameron's malicious prosecution claim, because it showed that the prosecutors made independent decisions based on additional, corroborating evidence, Appellees' Br. 38; they also claim that all of the testimony was relevant to damages and, furthermore, that Peterson's testimony was relevant to Appellants' Monell claims. Third, Appellants argue that the District Court erred in declining their request for an instruction that Higgenbottom's arrest for obstructing governmental administration could not have been lawful if Cameron's arrest was not lawful. Specifically, Appellants asked the District Court to instruct the jury that [i]f ... probable cause was lacking for Ms. Cameron's arrest, then defendants' actions were not authorized by law and [the jury's] verdict must be for Ms. Higgenbottom. J.A. 53. Instead, the District Court instructed the jury that the offense of obstructing governmental administration was committed by interfering with an official function, without defining that term. J.A. 661. Fourth, Appellants claim that the District Court erred in declining their request for a punitive damages instruction. During the charging conference, Appellants argued that their evidence supported a finding that Ramos and Rivera had intentionally lied, which Appellants claimed could constitute intentional and malicious or wanton and reckless conduct. J.A. 476-77. The District Court denied the request, stating that while [Appellants] raise genuine issues of material fact as to whether Officer Ramos and Rivera committed false arrest and initiated a malicious prosecution[, t]here is no evidence that their actions were wanton, malicious or reckless. J.A. 497.