Hygh v. Jacobs
961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992) (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a), expert testimony is inadmissible when it expresses a legal conclusion or tells the jury what result to reach, as this invades the province of the jury and the judge. However, the erroneous admission of such testimony may be deemed harmless error if other evidence is strong and the jury is properly instructed.
Facts:
- On the evening of May 21, 1987, William C. Hygh had a disagreement with his friend, Deborah Moore, at her home.
- After leaving the house, Hygh removed a propane tank attached to the house and placed it on the ground.
- Alarmed, Moore instructed her daughter to call the police.
- Police Officer William Jacobs arrived, leading to a heated exchange and a shoving match between Jacobs and Hygh.
- During the altercation, Jacobs informed Hygh he was under arrest.
- Jacobs then struck Hygh in the cheek, though the parties dispute the exact circumstances of the blow.
- The strike fractured Hygh's cheekbones, required plastic surgery, and resulted in permanent nerve damage.
- Jacobs testified that he had a flashlight in his hand during the entire encounter.
Procedural Posture:
- William C. Hygh sued Officer William Jacobs in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.
- A jury found for Hygh on all three claims, awarding compensatory damages for each and punitive damages.
- Jacobs moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial.
- The district court reduced the malicious prosecution award to nominal damages and ordered a new trial on false arrest damages unless Hygh accepted a reduced award (remittitur).
- Hygh rejected the remittitur, and a second trial was held solely on the issue of damages for false arrest.
- The second jury awarded Hygh $65,000 for false arrest.
- Jacobs, as appellant, appealed the final judgment and post-trial orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Hygh, as cross-appellant, appealed the reduction of his malicious prosecution award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an expert witness's testimony that a defendant's conduct was not 'justified,' not 'warranted,' and 'totally improper' constitute an inadmissible legal conclusion that invades the province of the jury, even under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a)?
Opinions:
Majority - Mahoney, Circuit Judge
Yes, expert testimony that expresses a legal conclusion about the ultimate issue, such as stating a defendant's actions were not 'justified' or were 'totally improper,' is inadmissible. Such testimony merely tells the jury what result to reach and improperly competes with the judge's function of instructing the jury on the law. The court reasoned that while Rule 704(a) abolished the common law 'ultimate issue' rule, it does not permit opinions phrased in terms of inadequately explored legal criteria. The expert's statements that Jacobs' conduct was not 'justified' and 'totally improper' were conclusory condemnations that crossed the line from permissible opinion into impermissible legal conclusion. However, the court found the error in admitting this testimony was harmless because the other evidence of excessive force was strong, the expert provided other permissible testimony from which the jury could draw its own conclusions, and the judge properly instructed the jury on the applicable law and its ability to disregard expert testimony.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 704, reinforcing the critical distinction between permissible opinions on factual matters and impermissible testimony that offers a legal conclusion. The decision serves as a guide for trial courts to exclude expert testimony that usurps the jury's role in applying the law to the facts or the judge's role in providing legal instructions. Although the court found harmless error in this specific instance, the opinion signals that such testimony is improper and could lead to reversal in cases with weaker supporting evidence. The case also provides important clarifications on tort law, holding that damages for false arrest are limited to the period before arraignment and that a dismissal 'in the interest of justice' does not satisfy the 'favorable termination' element of a malicious prosecution claim.
Unlock the full brief for Hygh v. Jacobs