Firm News

Wiggin and Dana obtained a precedential decision last week from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in favor of a pro bono client who is asserting civil rights claims against East Hartford police officers stemming from his wrongful arrest and prosecution in 2016.

After client Laurence Washington witnessed an acquaintance rob and murder a marijuana dealer one evening, he reported the incident to police. Officers arrested the murderer based on Washington’s statement and placed Washington in witness protection, making clear they believed claim that he’d had nothing to do with the offenses. Yet three months later, despite having done no additional investigation, the officers suddenly changed course and sought a warrant for Washington’s arrest on charges of robbery, conspiracy, and felony murder. After a neutral magistrate signed the arrest warrant, Washington turned himself into police. Though another judge later found that there was no probable cause to charge Washington with felony murder, he was nevertheless tried, and acquitted on the charges of robbery and conspiracy. By the time he was acquitted, Washington had spent almost a year in jail.

Acting pro se, Washington filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the police officers, alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. The District Court appointed partner John Doroghazi to represent Washington and, aided by partner Jenny Chou and associates Katie Baiocchi and Elana Bildner (now with the ACLU), the team amended complaint, took discovery, and defeated the officers’ motion for summary judgment on grounds of absolute and qualified immunity. After the officers took an interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s ruling, partner Tadhg Dooley stepped in to assist the trial team, briefing and presenting oral argument before the Second Circuit.

In a lengthy precedential decision, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment that the defendant police officers were not entitled to absolute immunity and that there were disputed issues of fact precluding a finding of qualified immunity. In particular, the panel majority concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the officers withheld exculpatory information from their arrest-warrant affidavit that would negate a showing of probable cause to arrest Washington. The decision clarifies that, while officers’ subjective beliefs are generally not relevant to determining whether probable cause exists for an arrest, police officers may not withhold information that would lend credibility to the arrestee’s claims of innocence.

Barring further appellate review, the case will return to the District Court for trial.