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.
