Marshall v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-02168
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Marshall v. Port Authority, Judge Liman kept qualified immunity from the jury and required revised factual questions from defendants.
The parties to Marshall v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, particularly the individual defendants who intended to rely on qualified immunity at trial.
What happened
In Marshall v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the court ruled on how the qualified-immunity defense would be handled at trial. The case involved the Port Authority and individual police-officer defendants, and trial was scheduled to begin on February 6, 2023.
The court said the jury could decide what the defendants actually believed and what facts occurred, but the court—not the jury—would decide whether the defendants’ conduct was objectively reasonable. The court therefore declined to give the jury a qualified-immunity instruction. It also declined to use the defendants’ proposed special questions because they did not ask about historical facts. The defendants could submit revised questions by noon on February 6, 2023.
Judge Lewis J. Liman also explained that New York and federal qualified-immunity standards differ. If the defendants intended to assert qualified immunity against the state malicious-prosecution claim, revised questions would need to provide a factual basis for the court to decide that defense. This order addressed trial procedures and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Marshall v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:19-cv-02168
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 6, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a proposed jury instruction concerning qualified immunity, and the defendants submitted proposed special interrogatories—written questions for the jury to answer about the case. Trial was scheduled to begin on February 6, 2023. The court noted that the Second Circuit treats whether an officer’s conduct was objectively reasonable as a legal question for the court.
Qualified-Immunity Instruction
The court ruled that it would not instruct the jury on qualified immunity. The jury could determine what the defendants believed, but it would not decide whether those beliefs or the defendants’ conduct were objectively reasonable. The court said the jury would not have the necessary information to decide that legal issue and that an instruction could confuse the jury.
Special Interrogatories
The court recognized that the defendants could ask the jury to answer factual questions about what they actually believed. But the proposed interrogatories did not ask the jury to decide historical facts, such as the situation confronting the defendants, what actions they took, or their motivations. The court therefore ruled that it would not deliver those proposed interrogatories. The defendants could submit revised interrogatories by noon on February 6, 2023, if they wanted the jury to answer historical-fact questions.
The court further stated that New York and federal qualified-immunity standards differ. If the defendants intended to assert qualified immunity against the state malicious-prosecution claim, the revised interrogatories also had to provide a factual basis for the court to decide qualified immunity under New York law.
Disposition and Scope
Judge Lewis J. Liman’s order resolved the proposed jury charge and special interrogatories. It was a trial-management ruling concerning who would decide qualified-immunity issues and what factual questions could be submitted to the jury. The opinion does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or state whether qualified immunity ultimately applies.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.