Limone v. United States
2009 WL 2621536, 579 F.3d 79, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19239 (2009)
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act does not shield the government from liability for conduct that is unconstitutional or clearly prohibited by federal statutes, such as knowingly framing innocent individuals for capital crimes and suppressing exculpatory evidence.
Facts:
- In 1965, Edward Deegan was murdered in Chelsea, Massachusetts, by a group of men linked to organized crime.
- FBI agents Rico and Condon possessed wiretap evidence and informant reports confirming the actual killers were Joseph Barboza and Jimmy Flemmi, among others.
- To protect Flemmi and Barboza as informants, the FBI agents allowed Barboza to provide a false account to state authorities implicating four innocent men: Limone, Tameleo, Greco, and Salvati.
- The FBI agents knew the four men were innocent but assisted Barboza in refining his false story and vouched for his credibility to state prosecutors.
- The FBI possessed exculpatory documents proving the innocence of the four men but deliberately suppressed this intelligence and failed to disclose it to state authorities or the defendants.
- Following the wrongful convictions, the FBI continued to conceal the evidence for over thirty years, even intervening to oppose commutation requests by claiming the men were active organized crime figures.
- In 2000, the Department of Justice finally released the suppressed documents, leading to the exoneration of the men, two of whom had already died in prison.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The United States moved to dismiss based on the discretionary function and intentional tort exceptions to the FTCA.
- The District Court denied the government's motions to dismiss.
- A bench trial was held in the District Court.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding over $100 million in damages.
- The United States appealed the liability and damages findings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Plaintiff Edward Greco cross-appealed regarding the calculation of his specific damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the United States liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress when FBI agents knowingly assist a witness in fabricating testimony to frame innocent men for murder and subsequently conceal exculpatory evidence for decades, or is such conduct shielded by the discretionary function exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Selya
Yes, the United States is liable because the FBI's conduct in framing innocent men and covering up the deed was extreme, outrageous, and unconstitutional, thereby placing it outside the protection of the discretionary function exception. While the court rejected the malicious prosecution claim on technical grounds (finding the FBI did not formally 'institute' the state proceedings), it upheld the liability for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). The court reasoned that the discretionary function exception protects policy-making decisions, but there is no discretion to violate the Constitution or frame citizens for capital crimes. The FBI's actions were not merely poor judgment but a deliberate scheme to suborn perjury and obstruct justice. Furthermore, the damages awarded ($1 million per year of imprisonment) were upheld as reasonable given the severity of the harm, including the trauma of death row and decades of wrongful imprisonment.
Analysis:
This decision is a significant precedent regarding the limits of federal sovereign immunity under the FTCA. It clarifies that the 'discretionary function' exception cannot be used as a shield for unconstitutional law enforcement conduct, specifically the knowing framing of innocent suspects. The court distinguished between 'malicious prosecution' (which was technically barred or unproven due to the FBI's lack of direct control over state prosecutors) and 'intentional infliction of emotional distress' (IIED), allowing the latter to serve as a vehicle for recovery. The ruling emphasizes that while the government has discretion in investigative tactics, that discretion does not extend to fabricating evidence or suppressing exculpatory material in violation of Brady v. Maryland. The affirmation of the $101 million damage award also establishes a benchmark for wrongful conviction compensation, validating the district court's '$1 million per year' baseline as within judicial discretion for egregious cases.
Unlock the full brief for Limone v. United States