FOLLOW US

A federal judge has declined to disturb a $3 million jury verdict against the city of Philadelphia and several police officers in a civil rights lawsuit stemming from a wrongful conviction, rejecting post-trial challenges from both sides and denying a request to sanction the plaintiff’s lead attorney.

In a memorandum issued Monday, U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy ruled that neither the city nor the individual officers were entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. He also denied plaintiff Termaine Hicks’ request for a new trial limited to damages and refused to impose sanctions against Hicks’ counsel.

“We cannot and will not substitute our judgment of the case for that of the jury,” the judge wrote.

Sanctions Request Rejected

The city had asked the court to revoke the pro hac vice admission of attorney Nick Brustin, arguing that he made false and inflammatory accusations during trial. According to the city, Brustin alleged that defense counsel misrepresented facts, coached witnesses to provide false testimony and acted with racial bias.

Alternatively, the city sought a formal reprimand for what it characterized as unprofessional courtroom behavior.

Judge Murphy declined to take disciplinary action, finding that while the proceedings were contentious, the conduct cited did not rise to the level of egregious or bad-faith behavior warranting sanctions. He described the tone of the trial as combative, remarking that the courtroom at times resembled “near-daily Festivus celebrations” in which grievances were aired for the record.

At the same time, the judge did not fully endorse the plaintiff attorney’s approach, calling his courtroom style “provocative and exhausting,” though he concluded that the quality of the legal work outweighed missteps.

The court also explicitly rejected claims raised during trial that the city’s lawyers acted with racial bias, stating that those allegations were unsupported by the record.

Challenges to the Verdict Denied

Both sides had asked the court to alter the outcome of the two-and-a-half-week trial held last summer.

Hicks sought a new trial on damages, arguing that the $3 million award was insufficient compensation for 19 years of wrongful imprisonment and may have reflected juror confusion over how to assess noneconomic harms such as loss of liberty and emotional suffering.

Judge Murphy rejected that argument, stating that jurors were properly instructed on the types of damages they could award. He found no indication that the panel misunderstood its role and concluded the verdict did not “shock the conscience” or require judicial intervention.

The city and officers separately argued that the liability findings were unsupported by the evidence and that trial errors — including certain evidentiary rulings and alleged improper conduct — tainted the proceedings.

The judge disagreed, finding that the record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to rule in Hicks’ favor and emphasizing that it is not the court’s role to reweigh witness credibility after a verdict has been rendered.

He noted that jurors were tasked with evaluating testimony about events that occurred roughly 25 years ago, requiring them to determine who was accurately recalling events and who was not.