Hoffer v. Police Officer Elyssa Tellone, Shield 730387

Background

Richard Hoffer brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state officials for violating constitutional rights. He alleged that Police Officers Elyssa Tellone, Trevor Goff, Lamont Brown, and Darcy Drummond violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force and failed to intervene to prevent or stop excessive force. After a trial that began on December 1, 2021, the jury returned a verdict for all defendants on both claims on December 8, 2021.

Motion and legal standard

Hoffer filed a motion called a motion for a directed verdict against Officer Goff on the excessive-force claim. He asked the court to set aside the jury’s verdict for Goff and either schedule a trial on compensatory damages or award nominal damages.

The court explained that a directed-verdict request is generally treated as a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. But a post-trial Rule 50 motion is available only when the party previously made a Rule 50(a) motion before the case was submitted to the jury. Because Hoffer had not made that earlier motion, the court treated his filing as a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a)(1)(A).

Under that rule, a court may order a new trial if the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or if the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. Although a court may weigh the evidence in deciding such a motion, it should rarely disturb the jury’s assessment of witness credibility, and a new trial is appropriate only when the verdict is egregious.

Evidence considered

Hoffer and Goff gave different accounts of the events after a high-speed car chase. Hoffer testified that he was struck by a Yonkers Police Department vehicle after leaving the vehicle he had been driving, was injured, and did not flee or resist arrest. Goff testified that Hoffer ran toward a wooded area after leaving the vehicle, that Goff pursued him, and that Goff deployed a Taser twice while trying to take him into custody. Officer Drummond’s testimony generally supported Goff’s account. Tellone and Brown were not directly involved in placing Hoffer under arrest after the chase, and they testified that they did not see Hoffer get struck by a Yonkers police vehicle.

Hoffer relied on a police dispatch record showing a communication at 7:57:16 p.m. stating that two people were in custody. Goff relied on a Taser usage report showing a deployment at 8:02:44 p.m. for five seconds. Hoffer argued that the apparent five-minute difference showed that Goff used the Taser after Hoffer was already in custody. Goff argued that the video showed Hoffer’s hands in front of him under his body, rather than behind him in handcuffs, and therefore showed that Hoffer was not yet in custody.

The court found that the video was brief, loud, and difficult to interpret, even after multiple viewings. It also noted that the evidence did not establish which Yonkers officer sent the custody communication, what that officer could observe, or whether the dispatch and Taser systems used synchronized clocks. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably have interpreted the video and testimony as showing that Hoffer was not handcuffed and was still struggling when Goff used the Taser.

Ruling

Judge Andrew E. Krause concluded that the jury could reasonably credit Goff’s and Drummond’s testimony and reject Hoffer’s account. The court therefore could not conclude that the jury reached a seriously erroneous result or that its verdict was a miscarriage of justice. Hoffer’s motion for a directed verdict, treated as a motion for a new trial, was DENIED.