Fraser v. City Of New York

Background

Jawaun Fraser brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Detective Jason Deltoro, Detective Matthew Regina, and Undercover Officer No. 84, collectively called the Individual Defendants. He alleged that the officers violated his rights by failing to disclose information about lawsuits that could have been used to cross-examine them in his criminal case. He also brought claims against the City of New York based on alleged municipal involvement in the violation.

Fraser alleged that the officers fabricated a story and documents supporting his 2014 arrest. He was convicted in 2015 of third-degree robbery and sentenced to two to six years in prison. He served approximately two years before release on parole. In 2019, the New York County Supreme Court vacated his conviction after finding that the prosecution violated its disclosure obligations by failing to disclose 12 lawsuits of which the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had constructive knowledge. The People did not retry Fraser; he later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The federal case remained scheduled for trial because earlier motions for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment had been denied.

Fraser’s Motions

The court denied Fraser’s motion for an unfavorable-inference jury instruction based on Detective Deltoro’s missing memo book. The court found that Fraser identified no evidence suggesting that the memo book contained information relevant to the alleged nondisclosure of lawsuits, so an inference favorable to Fraser would be speculative.

Fraser’s motion to prevent the defendants from blaming third parties for alleged disclosure violations was granted in part and denied in part. The court barred the defendants from arguing that defense counsel’s failure to discover publicly available lawsuits excused the officers’ own disclosure duties. The court stated that officers had an independent duty to disclose potentially useful information to the prosecutor, and that a criminal defendant is entitled to rely on the completeness and accuracy of the prosecutor’s disclosures rather than search public records for undisclosed information.

The court allowed the defendants to argue about what Fraser or his counsel actually knew at the time of his criminal trial because that issue could affect damages. But the defendants could not argue that Fraser or his counsel should have known about the lawsuits merely because the lawsuits were public. The court left unresolved certain questions about whether liability in this civil case requires intentional nondisclosure and what “knowledge” would mean in that context.

The court denied Fraser’s motion concerning alleged prior misconduct by former Lieutenant John Patane, who was not a defendant, and denied the motion concerning Detective Deltoro’s prior discipline for incomplete or improper memo-book entries and for losing a memo book. The court concluded that the incidents did not meaningfully bear on truthfulness and could lead to an unnecessary side dispute.

Defendants’ Motions

The court denied the defendants’ motion to introduce limited evidence concerning Fraser’s criminal history and alleged prior bad acts. The motion covered two brief prior incarcerations and an alleged admission concerning a prior narcotics sale that was not the crime charged in this case.

The defendants also sought to exclude evidence from unrelated civil lawsuits and the state court decision vacating Fraser’s conviction. The court ruled that no information could be introduced about lawsuits against Lieutenant Patane or Officer Lee because they were not defendants in this action and were not available for cross-examination on the alleged disclosure violation. The court also ruled that lawsuits filed after Fraser’s conviction could not have been suppressed at the time of his criminal trial.

For lawsuits involving the three Individual Defendants, the court stated that the mere fact that an officer had been sued did not automatically make the lawsuit usable for impeachment. The court explained that the nature of the alleged misconduct, rather than the existence of a lawsuit, must bear on credibility. Because Fraser had not provided the required lawsuit-by-lawsuit information in his motion, the court would not allow evidence about lawsuits other than the 12 lawsuits that formed the basis of the state court’s decision. Fraser could introduce evidence about those 12 lawsuits, and the parties were ordered to provide a list identifying the lawsuits, the Individual Defendants named in them, the allegations, and their dispositions, including any findings or admissions of wrongdoing. The court also stated that the text of the state court’s decision might be admitted.

The defendants’ request to preclude questioning about prior bad acts under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) was not resolved by allowing such questioning. The court stated that Fraser had not supplied the required specific information or explanation, and it would not permit that questioning until a pretrial ruling was made.

The court granted, to a specified extent, the defendants’ motion concerning the identity of Undercover Officer No. 84, who was still working undercover. During that witness’s testimony, the court would arrange for Fraser’s family, the press, and interested members of the public to listen from another courtroom and to receive copies of exhibits used during the testimony. The court accepted courtroom closure during the undercover officer’s testimony while preserving public and press access through the alternate arrangement.

The court granted the defendants’ motion to bar evidence or argument suggesting that the City would indemnify the Individual Defendants. It denied the defendants’ motion to bar Fraser’s counsel from suggesting a dollar amount of damages to the jury, while stating that the jury would be instructed to base any award on the evidence rather than speculation or counsel’s arguments.

Other Directions and Disposition

The opinion set a final pretrial conference for January 19 and stated that the trial would take place on March 6 because the other proposed dates were unavailable. The opinion warned that the date would not be changed and stated that failure by Fraser to appear would result in dismissal and failure by the defendants to appear would result in default.

Judge Colleen McMahon’s decision ruled on pretrial evidence and courtroom-management issues; it did not decide the parties’ underlying § 1983 and municipal-liability claims. The order therefore addressed what evidence and arguments could be presented at trial while leaving the merits for further proceedings.