Opinion ID: 2053154
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial, Verdict and Post-Trial Proceedings

Text: The trial court submitted the case to the jury on special verdict. First, the jury was asked to determine liability for four claims against all defendantsfor false arrest, malicious prosecution, defamation and the claim of constitutional violations under § 1983. [7] They were also asked to determine whether Henderson had proven his entitlement to back pay. This latter question called for the jury to check a yes block or a no block. [8] If the jury found for Henderson on any of these claims, they were asked to determine the amount of compensatory damages to which Henderson was entitled. The question read: If you find that any defendants are liable to plaintiff in parts A. B. C. D. or E. (the five claims for damages set forth above), set forth the dollar amount which will compensate plaintiff for the injuries which he sustained. $___________. The last question put to the jury was the question of punitive damages against the individual defendants. The jury found for Henderson against all defendants on all four of his claims for compensatory damages as well as finding for him on his claim for back pay. They filled in the blank for compensatory damages $30,000 plus court costs. Further, the jury awarded punitive damages in the sum of $100.00 each against Sgts. Gaines and Arnold, and Lt. Daniels and in the sum of $200 each against Inspector Wilson, Asst. Chief Tapscott, former Chief Jefferson and Chief Turner. Judgment was entered on that verdict by order dated the same day the verdict was received (April 2, 1982). On April 12, Henderson filed a motion to correct the judgment or for a new trial on damages only. He submitted affidavits from all of the jurors who averred that they understood that when they answered yes to the back pay question and then awarded $30,000 plus court costs, Henderson would receive the $30,000 plus his back pay. An equitable relief hearing was held on April 14, 1982. Henderson sought a ruling on his motion to amend the judgment to add the amount of back pay to which the court determined him entitled, benefits, retroactive promotion to the grade of Master Patrol Officer effective the date of his arrest as well as expungement of arrest records. The court took the matters under advisement. On March 30, 1983, in open court, Judge Bacon entered written orders: 1) denying the motion of the District of Columbia et al. for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial; 2) denying Henderson's motion to correct the judgment or for a new trial on damages only; 3) granting expungement (based on a finding that Henderson had established by clear and convincing evidence that he did not commit any crime in the December 19, 1979 incident), citing our two en banc decisions of the same name in District of Columbia v. Hudson, 404 A.2d 175 (D.C. 1979), and 449 A.2d 294 (D.C.1982); 4) holding that the issue relating to benefits (back annual and sick leave) had been submitted to the jury since the jury had been told to compensate Henderson for all the damages to which they determine him to be entitled; and 5) directing that Henderson be promoted to Master Patrolman retroactive to December 17, 1979. On January 26, 1983, while awaiting a ruling of the court on the matters it had taken under advisement on April 14, 1982, Henderson moved for an award of attorney's fees, costs and expenses pursuant to § 1988. The motion was accompanied by an affidavit of Ms. Gennett, lead counsel, by detailed time records, and affidavits of co-counsel as well as affidavits of three lawyers experienced in the field of civil rights litigation. [9] The motion sought an award of approximately $177,000. On January 31, 1984, the trial court issued a Memorandum Opinion awarding approximately $76,000 in fees and costs. The trial court stayed the judgment against the District of Columbia pending appeal. This court granted a similar stay to the individual defendants.