Manganiello v. City of New York
2010 WL 2884967, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15156, 612 F.3d 149 (2010)
Rule of Law:
A grand jury indictment creates a presumption of probable cause, but this presumption can be rebutted in a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by evidence that the indictment was procured through the defendant officer's fraud, perjury, suppression of evidence, or other bad-faith conduct, in which case qualified immunity is inapplicable.
Facts:
- On February 12, 2001, Albert Acosta, a special patrol officer, was fatally shot at the Parkchester South Condominiums in the Bronx, where Anthony Manganiello was also on duty.
- Detective Luis Agostini, the lead NYPD investigator, did not follow up on information Manganiello provided about other individuals who had previously threatened or assaulted Acosta, nor did he pass this information to the assistant district attorney (ADA).
- Agostini obtained a statement from Michael Booth, a known bookmaker, suggesting Manganiello tried to buy a gun from him, by threatening Booth with reporting his unlawful activities to the NYPD organized crime bureau.
- Agostini promoted Terrence Alston, a Bloods gang member who had previously lied about Manganiello and insisted on being present during witness interviews, as a credible witness against Manganiello to the ADA, without disclosing his concerns about Alston's veracity.
- The entire Acosta murder case file, including handwritten notes by detectives, original DD5s, and other investigative materials, disappeared while under Agostini's responsibility.
- Agostini misrepresented the content of a note found in Manganiello's locker, testifying in the criminal proceeding that it said “I feel like killing somebody,” when it actually read “I pray every day I will never have to kill someone.”
Procedural Posture:
- On February 12, 2001, Albert Acosta was fatally shot.
- Anthony Manganiello was initially arrested in connection with Acosta's murder but was released less than 24 hours later for lack of probable cause.
- Manganiello was rearrested on April 20, 2001, on a felony complaint signed by Detective Luis Agostini.
- On May 7, 2001, following testimony from Agostini, Alston, and other witnesses, a grand jury indicted Manganiello on two counts of murder in the second degree and one count each of manslaughter and criminal possession of a weapon.
- Manganiello was tried in 2004 in state criminal court on these charges and was acquitted on all counts.
- Following his acquittal, Manganiello commenced a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Agostini, other NYPD members, and the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming malicious prosecution.
- The district court granted summary judgment dismissing Manganiello’s claims against the City and five individual defendants, but allowed his claims against Agostini, Detective Shawn Abate, and three other defendants to proceed to trial.
- At trial, the jury found that only Agostini and Abate had maliciously prosecuted Manganiello, and specifically found that Agostini, but not Abate, had knowingly misrepresented or omitted material evidence.
- The district court granted a motion to dismiss the claim against Abate on the ground of qualified immunity.
- Agostini moved for judgment as a matter of law (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50) and, in the alternative, for a new trial (pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59), both of which the district court denied.
- Agostini appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 evidence demonstrating that a detective knowingly misrepresented and suppressed material information, coerced false statements, and lost critical evidence during a murder investigation suffice to rebut the presumption of probable cause established by a grand jury indictment and defeat a qualified immunity defense in a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Kearse, Circuit Judge
Yes, evidence demonstrating a detective's knowing misconduct in an investigation, including misrepresentation, suppression of exculpatory information, coercion of false statements, and the loss of critical case files, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of probable cause arising from a grand jury indictment and to deny qualified immunity in a malicious prosecution claim. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law for Detective Agostini, finding that the jury had ample evidence to conclude he maliciously prosecuted Manganiello. To establish malicious prosecution under New York law (as required for a § 1983 claim), a plaintiff must prove: (1) initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding; (2) termination in the plaintiff's favor; (3) lack of probable cause; and (4) actual malice. The court explained that while a grand jury indictment typically creates a presumption of probable cause, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence that the indictment was procured through 'fraud, perjury, the suppression of evidence or other police conduct undertaken in bad faith.' The jury found that Agostini knowingly misrepresented evidence, failed to provide material information, or gave false or materially misleading grand jury testimony. Specific evidence supporting this included Agostini's false DD5s, his failure to investigate exculpatory leads, his coercion of a false statement from witness Michael Booth, his promotion of a known unreliable witness (Terrence Alston) while suppressing knowledge of Alston's untrustworthiness, and the disappearance of the entire case file under Agostini's responsibility. The court noted that a lack of probable cause generally creates an inference of malice, which was further supported by Agostini's 'myopic focus' on Manganiello, his willingness to coerce statements, and his misrepresentation of Manganiello's locker note. Regarding qualified immunity, the court reiterated that it does not shield actions that are plainly incompetent or knowingly violate established law. Given the jury's findings of Agostini's knowing misconduct and the ample evidence, no reasonable officer could have believed such actions were lawful, thus rendering qualified immunity inapplicable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the critical importance of police integrity in criminal investigations and the ability of a civil jury to hold officers accountable for misconduct, even when a grand jury has issued an indictment. It clarifies that the presumption of probable cause from an indictment is not insurmountable when there is evidence of bad faith, fraud, or suppression of evidence by law enforcement. The ruling significantly limits the scope of qualified immunity for officers who knowingly engage in deceptive or coercive practices, emphasizing that such conduct falls outside the realm of objectively reasonable actions. This could encourage more thorough and transparent police investigations and strengthen civil remedies for individuals subjected to malicious prosecution based on official misconduct.
