Hincapie v. City of New York

Background

Johnny Hincapie was convicted of participating in the 1990 robbery and killing of Brian Watkins and was sentenced to 25 years to life. A New York court vacated his convictions in October 2015, and the District Attorney later declined to retry him. Hincapie then brought this civil-rights action against the City of New York and individual police investigators and officials.

Hincapie alleged, among other things, that investigators coerced him into repeating a false story, fabricated statements by him and other suspects, failed to disclose favorable evidence, maliciously prosecuted him, failed to intervene in constitutional violations, and were responsible for supervisory or emotional-distress claims. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the evidence did not support several claims.

Rulings on Threshold Arguments

The court rejected defendants’ argument that the rule from Heck v. Humphrey barred Hincapie’s claims. Hincapie’s own convictions had been vacated, and the court concluded that the rule did not bar this case merely because a favorable judgment might affect the convictions of former co-defendants. The court also rejected collateral estoppel, which prevents relitigation of issues already decided, because Hincapie’s conviction had been vacated and the record did not show that his interests had been adequately represented in the former co-defendants’ proceedings.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court found genuine disputes of material fact—disputes that a jury could resolve—concerning coercion by Detectives James Christie and Carlos Gonzalez. The evidence included conflicting accounts about who was present during Hincapie’s interrogation and evidence that Christie, Gonzalez, and Detective Donald Casey coordinated before, during, and after the interrogation. The coercion claim against Casey was not contested at this stage and therefore was not decided by the motion.

The court also allowed fabrication-of-evidence claims against Casey, Christie, and Gonzalez to proceed. The record could support a finding that the detectives coordinated to manufacture a false confession from Hincapie. It also could support a finding that Casey and Gonzalez obtained fabricated statements from Pascal Carpentier through intimidation and by dictating information for Carpentier to repeat.

The court denied summary judgment on Hincapie’s malicious-prosecution claims against Casey, Christie, and Gonzalez. It concluded that a jury could find that the detectives helped initiate the prosecution by preparing or forwarding false confessions, that the allegedly fabricated evidence affected probable cause, and that the prosecution ended in Hincapie’s favor when his convictions were vacated. The court likewise denied summary judgment on failure-to-intervene claims against those three detectives because a jury could find that they had realistic opportunities to stop violations during the lengthy interrogations.

Claims Dismissed or Resolved for Defendants

The court granted summary judgment on the coercion claim against Sergeant Sharif Ali and unidentified defendants because Hincapie lacked evidence linking them to the alleged coercion. It granted summary judgment on fabrication claims against Ali, Sergeants Gary Borman and Timothy Connolly, and Detectives Daniel Rizzo, Jose Ramon Rosario, Matthew Santoro, and Arthur Swenson. The court found the evidence concerning statements by other suspects too weak or speculative to allow a reasonable jury to find fabrication.

The court granted summary judgment on all fair-trial claims based on alleged Brady violations. Brady violations involve the government’s failure to disclose favorable evidence. Hincapie acknowledged that the favorable statements by Ricardo Lopez were disclosed before trial, and the court found no sufficient evidence that additional favorable statements had been suppressed.

The court granted summary judgment on the malicious-prosecution claims against Ali, Borman, Connolly, Rizzo, Rosario, Santoro, and Swenson, and on the failure-to-intervene claims against all defendants other than Casey, Christie, and Gonzalez. It also granted summary judgment on all supervisory-liability claims because the record did not show the required involvement, failure to remedy misconduct, policy or custom, negligent supervision, or deliberate indifference. The emotional-distress claims were dismissed because they were based on the same conduct covered by Hincapie’s other tort and civil-rights claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The coercion claims could proceed against Christie and Gonzalez, while the court did not decide the uncontested coercion claim against Casey. Fabrication-of-evidence, malicious-prosecution, and failure-to-intervene claims could proceed against Casey, Christie, and Gonzalez. The court granted summary judgment on the corresponding claims against the other defendants and on the Brady, supervisory-liability, and emotional-distress claims.

The court temporarily considered Carpentier’s unsigned affidavit and directed Hincapie, within 60 days, to submit a signed and sworn version or show cause why the unsigned affidavit should be considered. If he failed to do so, the court stated that summary judgment would be granted on the fabrication claims arising from Casey and Gonzalez’s interview of Carpentier.