Opinion ID: 659342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevant Public Interests.

Text: 29 The least well-defined element of a Rumery analysis is the consideration of whether enforcement of [a release-dismissal] agreement will 'adversely affect the relevant public interests.'  Id. at 975 (quoting Rumery, 480 U.S. at 398, 107 S.Ct. at 1194). Nevertheless, enforcement is appropriate on the facts of this case because police misconduct is alleged, but ... 'the true facts of the case are not known.'  Id. at 975 (quoting Lynch, 880 F.2d at 1127 n. 8.). The parties' advance conflicting versions of the events leading to Hill's injury, indicating that there is uncertainty as to the true facts underlying Hill's civil rights action. Enforcement of the settlement agreement  'allow[s] everyone to declare the case a draw and go home.'  Id. Furthermore, the criminal case against Hill went to trial and the jurors were split on whether to acquit him after the mistrial. 4 Thus, doubt exists as to the merits of the criminal charges. This also supports enforcement, given the substantial nexus between the criminal charges and Hill's civil rights action. Lynch, 880 F.2d at 1128 n. 8. Finally, enforcement is fitting because the criminal charges [we]re not the product of prosecutorial misconduct and enforcement limits the parties' exposure to potential liabilities and expenses. Coughlen, 5 F.3d at 975. While the district court did not discuss the relevant public interests as separate criteria, and such a discussion would have been helpful to us, we have conducted a search of the record with these criteria in mind. For the reasons we have indicated--the failure of the state court to reach a decision on the merits, the conflicting and adversarial positions taken by the parties on the proof, the connection between the civil rights action and the criminal charges, the lack of prosecutorial overreaching, as well as the nature of the charges brought--we are satisfied that the public interest is served here in holding that the agreement between the parties constitutes a bar to the plaintiff's suit.