legal advice

None of us sees the same events through the same lens. But is it possible that some of us see events through lenses, while others see the same events through kaleidoscopes? The answer to this question could not be better illustrated by the First Department's decision yesterday in Rivera v City of New York, 2007 NY Slip Op 04153. The case arose out of a demonstration which occurred in the Bronx in 1992. The plaintiffs and several other members of a group called Positive Workforce, Inc. participated in a demonstration at Orchard Beach to protest what they believed were discriminatory practices by beer maker Anheuser-Busch. While the demonstration was occurring thousands of others were attending a concert on the beach. The protesters marched, chanted, held up placards and handed out fliers.
Although the protesters did not have the required park permit to demonstrate, the police did not interfere with their demonstration because, up until the time the concert was about to end, the demonstration was organized and peaceful. However, at about 5 o'clock, the police became concerned because the majority of concert goers would exit by way of the boardwalk where some of the protesters were still handing out fliers. The police thus requested the protesters to leave that area. The protesters admittedly refused to comply with police directives. Some members of a gathering crowd began chanting "racism," and some plaintiffs admitted they joined in. A large crowd gathered, people began throwing bottles and rocks, and a brief scuffle ensued between police and the protesting plaintiffs. The police arrested four plaintiffs and issued summonses to another three. As a result, the plaintiffs were charged with various crimes including assault in the second degree, rioting, resisting arrest, inciting to riot, and disorderly conduct. All of these criminal charges were eventually resolved in the plaintiffs' favor.
Accordingly, thereafter, the plaintiffs commenced this civil action for damages, alleging excessive police force, malicious prosecution, and false arrest,. In addition to witness testimony, three videos of the incident were introduced into evidence and repeatedly shown to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded some $81 million in damages. The trial court denied the City's motion to set aside the verdict, but did grant an application to reduce the award to $635,000.
On appeal, the First Department, after viewing the video found that there was simply no basis for the jury's finding. The Court stated in part:
[T]he record unequivocally shows that the police first approached plaintiffs in a friendly manner at a time when the boardwalk was crowded and requested that they stop handing out fliers and leave.
[I]t is impossible to hold that there was any valid line of reasoning or permissible inferences that could have led this or any jury to conclude rationally that these defendants were liable for malicious prosecution based on lack of probable cause. To the contrary, the evidence of probable cause in this record is strong and free of ambiguity.
Any rational person, objectively looking at the video and reviewing the other evidence, would find the police more than justified in their concern that this episode might escalate into violence. * * * There is no proof in the record — particularly on the video — from which a jury could conclude that defendants acted with malice.
The Court thus dismissed the complaint in its entirety against the City [the Court also found the reduced amount of $635,000 in damages to be excessive].
How can it be that two separate groups of supposedly rational people can view the same visual record of events and come to completely opposite conclusions? Is it, as suggested by the First Department, that one of the groups is not rational, but rather motivated by bias, prejudice, or differing notions of what justice is? If visual evidence can be so differently interpreted, what about non-visual evidence? These questions certainly should give all pause to consider just how tenuous justice may be. It is this writer's belief that civil justice (or criminal justice for that matter) is only workable if there is a set of commonly held beliefs as to what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, and what is and what is not. This is certainly not the first case in which a visual record of events has been so oppositely interpreted. But it is perhaps a warning and reminder that perhaps our society has become so fragmented that civil justice has basically become a crap-shoot, a random roll of the dice. For justice's sake, perhaps it might be better if we focused our attention not on new laws, regulations, or shifting notions of liability, but rather on re-establishing a set of commonly held beliefs on the above listed notions.