Argued: April 26, 2018
Appeal
from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York. No. 12-cv-01025 - Ann M. Donnelly,
Judge.
Kareem
Bellamy filed this action in the Eastern District of New York
under New York state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following
the vacatur of his state convictions for murder in the second
degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(2) and criminal
possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under N.Y. Penal
Law § 265.01(2), for which he served more than 14 years
of a 25 years-to-life sentence. Bellamy sued investigating
Detectives Michael Solomeno and John Gillen of the New York
Police Department (and certain John Does) as well as the City
of New York (at times, the "City"), alleging that
each are responsible for constitutional infirmities that
infected Bellamy's criminal trial, caused his wrongful
conviction, and resulted in damages. The district court
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
As
relevant on appeal, Bellamy alleged that Detectives Solomeno
and Gillen fabricated inculpatory evidence and failed to
disclose material exculpatory or impeaching evidence
depriving Bellamy of his rights to due process and a fair
trial. Bellamy alleged that the City is responsible, pursuant
to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for violations of
Bellamy's due process rights caused by certain policies
of the office of the Queens County District Attorney
("QCDA"), the office that prosecuted Bellamy.
Principally, Bellamy alleged that (i) the QCDA's office
failed to disclose to the defense substantial benefits
received by a key state witness due to an office policy of
purposefully shielding from prosecutors (and thereby the
defense) the full scope of relocation benefits given to
witnesses in its witness protection program; and (ii) his
prosecutor made prejudicial improper remarks during his
summation, which was ultimately a result of the QCDA's
office's customary indifference to its prosecutors'
summation misconduct.
The
district court (Donnelly, J.) granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed
each of Bellamy's claims. As relevant here, the district
court rejected the claims against Detectives Solomeno and
Gillen on the ground that Bellamy raised no material issue of
fact as to whether either detective fabricated or withheld
material evidence. The district court rejected the claims
against the City, concluding that the City could not as a
matter of law be liable under Monell for the alleged
policies of the QCDA's office, and that, in any event,
Bellamy did not raise a material issue of fact as to either
of the constitutional violations underlying his
Monell claims.
The
questions for our determination are whether Bellamy has
produced sufficient evidence to raise material issues of fact
that must be tried to a jury and whether the district court
erred in dismissing the Monell claims as a matter of
law. If not, summary judgment was proper; if so, then summary
judgment should not have been granted.
We
conclude that Bellamy has raised material issues of fact as
to certain, but not all, of his claims that Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen fabricated and withheld material
evidence, and we therefore VACATE in part and AFFIRM in part
the dismissal of Bellamy's claims against them. We
further conclude that the City of New York may be held liable
for the consequences of the alleged policies of the
QCDA's office under the Monell doctrine, and
that Bellamy has raised material issues of fact as to the
underlying constitutional violations: the non-disclosure of
financial benefits received by one of the state's
principal witnesses and the impropriety of his
prosecutor's summation. Consequently, we VACATE the
dismissal of Bellamy's claims against the City.
We
REMAND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Joel
B. Rudin, Law Office of Joel B. Rudin, P.C., New York, NY,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Megan
E.K. Montcalm (Richard Dearing, on the brief), for Zachary W.
Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New
York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Richard D. Willstatter, Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee
of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee of the New York State
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, White Plains, NY;
Adele Bernhard, Innocence Network, New York, NY; Barry
Scheck, Innocence Project, New York, NY; Ross E. Firsenbaum,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP, New York NY, for
Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, New York State Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, Innocence Network, and Innocence Project.
Before: Walker and Jacobs, Circuit Judges, Shea, District
Judge. [*]
John
M. Walker, Jr., Circuit Judge
Kareem
Bellamy filed this action in the Eastern District of New York
under New York state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 following
the vacatur of his state convictions for murder in the second
degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(2) and criminal
possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under N.Y. Penal
Law § 265.01(2), for which he served more than 14 years
of a 25 years-to-life sentence. Bellamy sued investigating
Detectives Michael Solomeno and John Gillen of the New York
Police Department (and certain John Does) as well as the City
of New York (at times, the "City"), alleging that
each are responsible for constitutional infirmities that
infected Bellamy's criminal trial, caused his wrongful
conviction, and resulted in damages. The district court
granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.
As
relevant on appeal, Bellamy alleged that Detectives Solomeno
and Gillen fabricated inculpatory evidence and failed to
disclose material exculpatory or impeaching evidence
depriving Bellamy of his rights to due process and a fair
trial. Bellamy alleged that the City is responsible, pursuant
to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), for violations of
Bellamy's due process rights caused by certain policies
of the office of the Queens County District Attorney
("QCDA"), the office that prosecuted Bellamy.
Principally, Bellamy alleged that (i) the QCDA's office
failed to disclose to the defense substantial benefits
received by a key state witness due to an office policy of
purposefully shielding from prosecutors (and thereby the
defense) the full scope of relocation benefits given to
witnesses in its witness protection program; and (ii) his
prosecutor made prejudicial improper remarks during his
summation, which was ultimately a result of the QCDA's
office's customary indifference to its prosecutors'
summation misconduct.
The
district court (Donnelly, J.) granted
Defendants-Appellees' motion for summary judgment and
dismissed each of Bellamy's claims. As relevant here, the
district court rejected the claims against Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen on the ground that Bellamy raised no
material issue of fact as to whether either detective
fabricated or withheld material evidence. The district court
rejected the claims against the City, concluding that the
City could not as a matter of law be liable under
Monell for the alleged policies of the QCDA's
office, and that, in any event, Bellamy did not raise a
material issue of fact as to either of the constitutional
violations underlying his Monell claims.
The
questions for our determination are whether Bellamy has
produced sufficient evidence to raise material issues of fact
that must be tried to a jury and whether the district court
erred in dismissing the Monell claims as a matter of
law. If not, summary judgment was proper; if so, then summary
judgment should not have been granted.
We
conclude that Bellamy has raised material issues of fact as
to certain, but not all, of his claims that Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen fabricated and withheld material
evidence, and we therefore VACATE in part and AFFIRM in part
the dismissal of Bellamy's claims against them. We
further conclude that the City of New York may be held liable
for the consequences of the alleged policies of the
QCDA's office under the Monell doctrine, and
that Bellamy has raised material issues of fact as to the
underlying constitutional violations: the non-disclosure of
financial benefits received by one of the state's
principal witnesses and the impropriety of his
prosecutor's summation. Consequently, we VACATE the
dismissal of Bellamy's claims against the City.
We
REMAND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
BACKGROUND
This
appeal requires us to address the complex and protracted
facts surrounding the events pertaining to the 1994 killing
of James Abbott. While Plaintiff-Appellant Kareem Bellamy was
ultimately convicted in New York state court for Abbott's
murder, the uncertain circumstances of the killing, and the
investigation and trial that followed, sparked a lengthy,
circuitous, and at times dramatic legal fight that continued
into post-conviction proceedings. That battle began with what
the record shows to have been a hard-fought criminal trial
with no certain outcome in sight. Ultimately, Bellamy was
acquitted on the charge of intentional murder but convicted
of depraved indifference murder and unlawful possession of a
weapon. After Bellamy exhausted his direct appeal
opportunities without success, the post-conviction litigation
proceeded in two general stages. First, after a prolonged and
complicated state post-conviction process, the state court
vacated Bellamy's convictions in light of newly
discovered evidence that another individual might have
committed the Abbott murder. Second, following the
state's decision not to re-try him and his release from
prison, Bellamy sought civil relief in federal court alleging
that his criminal trial was infected with constitutional
error. The instant lawsuit concerns only the latter fight,
which pertains not to how or why Bellamy was released but
whether constitutional error led to his conviction in the
first place.
In
assessing the constitutional propriety of Bellamy's
criminal trial, we are aided by (i) an extensive summary
judgment record, which includes documents related to the
investigation and prosecution of Bellamy; (ii) the record of
Bellamy's criminal trial; (iii) the record of
Bellamy's state post-conviction proceedings; and (iv)
extensive deposition testimony taken in this
action.[1] Although much is in contention in this
case, what follows are the undisputed facts from this
complicated record and other relevant facts that we identify
as remaining in dispute.
I.
James Abbott's Murder and the Resulting
Investigation
Shortly
before 10:00 a.m., on Saturday, April 9, 1994, an assailant
fatally stabbed James Abbott near a phone booth during an
altercation after Abbott left a C-Town Supermarket in Far
Rockaway, Queens. Detectives Michael Solomeno and John Gillen
of the NYPD's 101st Precinct were assigned to
investigate. In canvassing the area, Detective Gillen, with
other officers, entered the C-Town store with a photo of
Abbott to see if anyone had witnessed anything. Detective
Gillen spoke with Jay Judel, a C-Town deli clerk, who
reported that Abbott, a regular customer, had been in the
store alone that morning. Another officer interviewed Andrew
Carter, a wheelchair-bound man living adjacent to the C-Town
who said that he saw the attack while waiting at a bus stop
down the street from the phone booth where the altercation
took place. Carter told the officer that he saw three males
he did not recognize leave the C-Town, and that when one
stopped to use the payphone, the other two "started
punching and kicking" him, and that "one of the
males then produced a knife and started stabbing the victim
numerous times about the body and head." App'x 234.
Carter told the officer that the two men fled on foot.
The
following week, on April 15, 1994, Detective Gillen received
a phone call from a woman who identified herself as Anna
Simmons. Simmons reported that she had overheard two
individuals, Levon ("Ish") Martin and Rodney
("Turk") Harris, discussing the Abbott murder.
Simmons said that she heard Ish and Turk bragging that they
had killed Abbott following Abbott's refusal to join
their gang, the Regulators. The following day, Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen re-interviewed Carter, who was unable to
identify Ish and Turk from a photo array. In the days that
followed, Detectives Solomeno and Gillen tried to track down
Simmons, but never found her.
On
April 22, 1994, Linda Sanchez, a C-Town cashier who was
working at the store on the morning of Abbott's murder,
called the 101st Precinct.[2] Detectives Solomeno and Gillen then
interviewed her at her home. Sanchez told the detectives that
on the morning of the murder, Abbott, whom she recognized,
entered the store, collected certain goods and got in a
cashier's line, and that two other men then came into the
store and ultimately got in line behind Abbott. After making
his purchases, Abbott remained in the store to speak with the
store's manager, "JJ," while the two men behind
Abbott in line had left the store and started walking through
the parking lot "toward the chicken store."
App'x 237. Sanchez noted that before they left the
parking lot, the two men stopped and looked back at the
C-Town store. Sanchez herself then walked to the parking lot
to collect shopping carts whereupon she saw Abbott walk out
of the store through the parking lot and also in the
direction of the "[c]hicken store." App'x
237-238. The detectives showed Sanchez a photo array that
included Ish and Turk-the two men identified in the Anna
Simmons phone call-but she did not recognize them as the two
men she had seen in the store in line behind Abbott.
Three
weeks later, on May 13, 1994, Sanchez again called the
precinct to report that a man, who was drinking a 40-ounce
beer across the street from the C-Town, was one of the two
men that she had previously reported were in the
cashier's line behind Abbott on the morning of
Abbott's murder. Shortly thereafter, Detective Gillen
arrived on the scene with other detectives, and they saw
Bellamy drinking a 40-ounce beer in the location Sanchez
described. The detectives detained Bellamy in a squad car and
told him that he was being taken to the station to be fined
in relation to his public drinking. As we will discuss later,
Detective Gillen said at trial that Bellamy made spontaneous
and unprompted comments in the police car regarding a murder,
but Bellamy denies that this occurred.
At the
police station, Detective Gillen showed Bellamy a photo of
Abbott's body and told him that there were witnesses
identifying him as the assailant. Bellamy denied any
involvement in the murder and told Detective Gillen that he
was with a friend named Terrill Lee on the day of the
murder. Bellamy was placed in a holding cell
overnight.
The
following day, May 14, 1994, Detective Gillen orchestrated a
six-person lineup at the precinct, to be viewed by Sanchez
and Carter, the sole eyewitnesses known to the detectives at
that time. Bellamy was in position one. Sanchez identified
the individual in position one as one of the two men she saw
leave the C-Town prior to Abbott on the day of Abbott's
killing. As to be discussed, the parties dispute certain
aspects of what occurred during Carter's viewing of the
lineup. All agree, however, that Carter initially recognized
one of Abbott's assailants in either position one or two
but that he subsequently told Detective Gillen in a separate
room that he was "99% sure" that the person he
recognized was in position one, which in fact was Bellamy.
App'x 295, 2415.
Hours
later, in the early morning of May 15, 1994, Detective Gillen
and Assistant District Attorney (ADA) Stephen Antignani of
the QCDA's office took a sworn statement from Terrill
Lee, the man Bellamy claimed he was with on the day of
Abbott's murder. Lee stated that although he was friends
with Bellamy, he was not with him at all on April 9, 1994.
Thereupon, that same day, Detective Gillen filled out a
criminal complaint charging Bellamy with Abbott's murder.
II.
Criminal Proceedings Against Kareem Bellamy
The
grand jury indicted Bellamy on two counts of murder in the
second degree under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(1)
(intentional murder) and § 125.25(2) (depraved
indifference murder), and one count of criminal possession of
a weapon in the fourth degree under N.Y. Penal Law §
265.01(2). After unsuccessful suppression motions by the
defense, the case proceeded to trial in November 1995 with
ADA David Guy of the QCDA's office as the prosecutor.
As
relevant to this appeal, the state called the following
witnesses: (i) Detective Gillen; (ii) Linda Sanchez; (iii)
Detective Solomeno; (iv) Carter; (v) Deborah Abbot, the
victim's sister; and (vi) Veronica Walker, an eyewitness
who surfaced for the first time during the trial. We
summarize the relevant portions of each state witness's
trial testimony and the summations.[3]
Detective
Gillen. Detective Gillen's testimony described his
investigation of the Abbott murder. He testified about his
initial discussion with Carter on the day of the murder, the
Anna Simmons phone call the following week, and his role in
the lineups. Detective Gillen also testified about the
circumstances of picking up Bellamy following Sanchez's
call to the precinct. Detective Gillen testified with
reference to an unsigned handwritten note that he wrote, that
he said was his contemporaneous memorialization of
Bellamy's utterance in the squad car on the way to the
police station: "This must be a case of mistaken
identity-someone probably accused me of murdering
someone." Trial Tr. 494-95; see App'x 290.
Detective
Gillen
then testified that after arriving at the station he added
the following notation on the same piece of paper:
"Statement made by [Bellamy] while being asked his
pedigree-spontaneous & unsolicited." Trial Tr.
534-40; App'x 1707.[4] On cross-examination, Detective Gillen
acknowledged that he did not incorporate any of Bellamy's
statements in a "DD-5," known as a "complaint
follow up" form, despite having prepared eight DD-5s
throughout the investigation of the Abbott murder. Trial Tr.
527-28, 532-34.
Linda
Sanchez.[5] ADA Guy began his questioning of Sanchez
by soliciting her biographical information and then asking if
she "receive[d] any money from the office of the [QCDA]
prior to coming into court today?" Trial Tr. 633.
Sanchez acknowledged that she had received $50 from the
QCDA's office and anticipated receiving another $50 from
the office. She testified that the money was for "food
for the babies, Pampers," and amounted to "$25 a
day." Trial Tr. 634. She further testified that she
"came [to court] with the detective," and that she
was staying overnight at a "different location"
than her residence, and that "[t]he detective"
"put [her] into that differen[t] location." Trial
Tr. 634-35.
Sanchez
then testified as to what she saw on the morning of April 9,
1994. She identified Bellamy as being in the C-Town that
morning, wearing a green jacket and braids in his hair, with
"a lot of braids sticking up," and that he and
another taller person went to the same line as Abbott. Trial
Tr. 639-41, 774. Sanchez had seen Bellamy in the C-Town many
times before and noticed him that day because "[h]e was
buying beer on a Sunday-on a Saturday that day." Trial
Tr. 642. Bellamy was in the store for about fifteen minutes
and walked out before Abbott. Sanchez noticed Bellamy turn to
the right after he left the store, rather than to the left,
the direction in which he usually departed from the store.
Sanchez then walked to the parking lot to retrieve shopping
carts when she noticed Abbott catch up to Bellamy and the
taller person and pass by them. Sanchez testified that when
NYPD officers came to the C-Town later that morning, she did
not speak to them.
Finally,
Sanchez testified that Bellamy threatened her on two separate
occasions after the Abbott murder. A week after the murder,
Bellamy entered the C-Town and said to her: "You know,
you know, you fucking bitch. . . . You're next."
Trial Tr. 706. Then, Sanchez testified that the following
occurred on the street on May 13, 1994 before she called the
police: "He was pointing at me. You know yelling, at
like, yelling something at me. Just pointing and pointing at
my direction." Trial Tr. 710. Sanchez testified that she
never told the police about these threats, and that she had
not told anyone about them until one week before
Bellamy's trial (in November 1995).[6]
Detective
Solomeno. Detective Solomeno testified that he was
initially the assigned detective on the investigation of the
Abbott murder, and that he played a role in the Ish and Turk
photo arrays shown to Sanchez and Carter and that he
conducted the April 22, 1994 interview of Sanchez. Detective
Solomeno also testified that, in the days prior to his trial
testimony, he had spoken to Deborah Abbott, the victim's
sister, who had given him the contact information for a woman
named Veronica Walker. Detective Solomeno testified that he
spoke with Walker shortly before trial on December 1, 1995
and that he prepared a DD-5 in connection with that
interview.
Andrew
Carter. Carter testified as to what he saw on the
morning of the murder and what happened at the Bellamy
lineup. On April 9, 1994, as he was waiting for the bus, he
saw three people walk out of the C-Town store, one by himself
and the other two together. The three men came "right
past" him, and then Carter looked in another direction.
Trial Tr. 868. When Carter turned back towards the direction
of the three men, "the other two guys were beating the
hell out of [Abbott]." Trial Tr. 869. Carter then
testified that one of the two men pulled out a "brass
knuckle knife" and stabbed Abbott. Trial Tr. 872. Carter
pointed to Bellamy from the witness stand and testified that
the individual who stabbed Abbott was "the gentlemen
right there." Trial Tr. 870-71. Carter had never seen
any of the individuals before, but he got a good look at
their faces. Trial Tr. 872- 73. Carter had "[n]o
doubt" that Bellamy was the person he saw stab Abbott
that morning. Trial Tr. 872.
Carter
then testified at length about viewing the lineup in which
Bellamy was in position one. He testified that he initially
told the detective that "it was either one or two,
because they got their hair different." Trial Tr. 880.
Specifically, Carter testified that the individual he saw
stab Abbott did not have braids in his hair, but that the
person in position one at the lineup did have braids. Carter
then had a conversation in another room with an ADA and a
detective where Carter "said [it was] two." Trial
Tr. 883. Carter testified several times at trial that the
individual he saw stab Abbott was in position number two in
the lineup. Trial Tr. 895-96, 903-04. Nevertheless, Carter
testified that he told the detectives at the time that it was
"either one or two," but also that he was 99% sure
the assailant was in position number one. Trial Tr. 882, 896,
903. ADA Guy tried to sum up (but not resolve) the confusion
on redirect, asking Carter: "You told us today it was
number two, but you told the detective it was number one that
day?" Trial Tr. 904. Carter responded, "Yes."
Trial Tr. 904.
Deborah
Abbott. Deborah Abbott, the victim's sister,
testified about a conversation she had with Veronica Walker
in July of 1995, fifteen months after the killing of her
brother but four months prior to the trial. Following that
conversation, she called the police and spoke with prosecutor
ADA Guy. The next time Deborah Abbott spoke to ADA Guy was
one week before the trial, where she for the first time gave
identifying information for Walker.
Veronica
Walker. Walker testified as to what she saw on the
morning of April 9, 1994. Walker stopped into the C-Town
prior to a 10:00 a.m. hair appointment, and briefly spoke
with Abbott who she recognized from her neighborhood. She
left the store after about 5-6 minutes, got in her car, and
began to drive away. She stopped at the adjacent intersection
and saw through her car's passenger side window that
Abbott was fighting with a lone man near a phone booth
directly to her right. Walker then made a righthand turn when
a skinny 5'6" man with braided hair "came from
across the left-hand side of the street from the back of
[her] car, running across the street," and joined in the
fight between Abbott and the unidentified man. Trial Tr.
1001-03. Walker, who knew Bellamy personally, testified that
she did not recognize the man who ran behind her car to join
the fight, had never seen him before, and did not see him in
the courtroom.
In an
apparent attempt to impeach Walker's non-identification
of Bellamy, ADA Guy then asked Walker about her interview
with Detectives Solomeno and Gillen the previous week:
Q: Well, didn't you tell Detective Solomeno and Detective
Gillen that you recognized that person [who you saw run by
the car] as Kareem [Bellamy]?
A: No.
Q: What-Well, did you tell Detective Solomeno that the person
looked like Kareem?
A: I said it could have been him. It could have.
Trial Tr. 1005. The defense asked Walker almost no questions.
Defense
Summation.[7] In summation, the defense argued that the
state had not shown that Bellamy committed the Abbott murder
beyond a reasonable doubt. It argued that the case was a
"rush to judgment," and that "the district
attorney was anxious to close this case and so they closed
it." Trial Tr. 1099. The defense principally attacked
the three eyewitnesses. It argued that Sanchez's story
lacked common sense and that she had a motive to lie given
her receipt of $25 per day by the QCDA's office. The
defense focused on Carter's trial testimony to the effect
that the assailant was in position two at the lineup, not
position one, and downplayed Carter's in-court
identification by arguing that Carter simply pointed to the
only "black man" at the defense counsel's
table. Trial Tr. 1099. Counsel reminded the jury that Walker
did not identify Bellamy as the person she saw run by her
car, and rather acknowledged only that it could have
been him. The defense also focused on the differing accounts
from the witnesses as to whether the assailant did or did not
have braided hair. Trial Tr. 1093; compare Trial Tr.
774 & 1003 (Sanchez and Walker's testimony that the
assailant had braids) with Trial Tr. 896
(Carter's testimony that the assailant did not have
braids).[8] The defense then argued that Bellamy never
made the spontaneous "murder" statement in the
squad car, and that even if he did, it was not inculpatory.
Finally, the defense counsel reminded the jury that the state
had never attempted to establish any motive for the killing.
State's
Summation. ADA Guy delivered a lengthy summation,
acknowledging, at the outset, that the evidence in the case
was messy and was not presented in a "tidy little
package" for the jury. Trial Tr. 1113. But, he argued,
the jury's "task becomes relatively easy" when
it applies common sense and focuses principally on the
testimony of the three eyewitnesses. Trial Tr. 1115.
ADA Guy
acknowledged that Sanchez "may not be the most
articulate person," and that she "got a little
confused from time to time" and "didn't testify
all that well," in that she made certain mistakes and
contradictions, but that her story was credible, she had no
reason to lie, and there was no "evidence that she is a
liar." Trial Tr. 1121, 1138-40, 1144. ADA Guy also
acknowledged certain contradictions in Carter's testimony
and argued that Carter "made a mistake" when he
said that the assailant was in position two at the lineup.
Trial Tr. 1134-36. But, ADA Guy argued, "[y]ou don't
have to take my word. Common sense will tell you it's the
defendant, number one, who is on trial, not some filler in a
lineup." Trial Tr. 1137. ADA Guy also acknowledged
Walker's non-identification of Bellamy in court but
argued that the jury should instead focus on the physical
description that she provided of the individual she saw on
the morning of the Abbott murder, which is consistent both
with Bellamy's actual description and the other
eyewitnesses' description of the assailant.
ADA Guy
then addressed the defense's remaining contentions. He
answered the defense's contention that the state offered
no motive for Bellamy's alleged killing of Abbott by
arguing that there was no proof, either way, of motive in
this case, "submit[ting that] there is no proof that he
had no motive." Trial Tr. 1133 (emphasis
added). ADA Guy also reminded the jury of Detective
Gillen's testimony regarding Bellamy's
"premature denial" in the squad car, arguing that
it was in character with Bellamy's inability to
"keep his mouth shut," a mouth that ADA Guy argued
was "huge" and "cavernous," as well as
Bellamy's status as a "liar." Trial Tr.
1145-48.
ADA Guy
concluded by again imploring the jurors to use their common
sense. As reflected in the trial transcript, ADA Guy told the
jury: "I know who committed the murder. You know it was
an intentional murder and you know there is no rational
explanation for why so many people are pointing their fingers
at [Bellamy]." Trial Tr. 1149.[9] ADA Guy concluded in
substance: "When the defendant asked why would someone
be accusing me of murder, by your verdict you can answer his
question. Because you are the murderer. It's because the
evidence shows that you are the murderer, and that you are
not going to get away with it, not this time." Trial Tr.
1150.
* * *
After
three days of deliberations, during which the jury submitted
eighteen notes to the judge, sought lengthy readbacks of
testimony, and was given an Allen charge,
[10]
the jury acquitted Bellamy of intentional murder but
convicted him of depraved indifference murder and a weapons
charge. The court sentenced Bellamy to 25-years-to-life.
Bellamy appealed the convictions, arguing (i) insufficiency
of the evidence; (ii) that Detective Gillen provided false
testimony; and (iii) that Bellamy's statements to Gillen
and the lineup identifications should have been suppressed.
The state appellate court affirmed, 247 A.D.2d 399, and leave
to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, 91 N.Y.2d 970.
Bellamy's federal habeas corpus petition, which
depended entirely on his assertion that Gillen falsely
testified as to Bellamy's statements in the squad car
following his pickup, was denied and not appealed.
III.
Bellamy's State Post-Conviction Proceedings
In
2007, more than a decade after his conviction, Bellamy moved
to vacate the judgment against him pursuant to N.Y. Crim.
Proc. Law § 440.10(f), (g) and (h). See People v.
Bellamy, 2008 WL 3271995, at *2-3 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty.
June 27, 2008). The central basis for the sought-after relief
was § 440.10(g), which under certain circumstances
allows for the vacatur of a guilty verdict upon the discovery
of new evidence. The principal new evidence relied on by
Bellamy was that: (i) another individual, Ish, had confessed
to the Abbott murder to a police informant named Michael
Green, and that Green had Ish on tape discussing the crime;
and (ii) Carter recanted his trial testimony that identified
Bellamy as the assailant and was now asserting that he
falsely inculpated Bellamy at trial under pressure by
Detective Gillen.
The
state post-conviction court conducted a lengthy hearing,
which included taking the testimony of several of the trial
witnesses, including Carter, [11] Walker, Sanchez, and
Detectives Solomeno and Gillen, as well as the testimony of
Green and ADA Antignani. As will be discussed, some of the
testimony at this hearing added further color to the events
surrounding Abbott's murder, while other testimony
conflicted with that given at trial. Following the hearing,
the court granted Bellamy's motion and vacated his
conviction based solely on the newly discovered evidence
proffered by Green that inculpated Ish in Abbott's
murder.[12] See id. at *11-12 (finding
Carter's recantation not credible).
After
filing an appeal of that judgment, however, the state moved
for reargument before the hearing court, arguing that the
evidence from Green that the court relied on to vacate
Bellamy's conviction was perjurious and fraudulent. The
state submitted an affidavit from Green in which he now
admitted that the tape he offered at the § 440 hearing
purportedly capturing a conversation between Green and Ish
was in fact a recording between Green and an acquaintance
pretending to be Ish. See People v. Bellamy, 2010 WL
143462, at *1 (Sup. Ct. Queens Cnty. Jan. 14, 2010). The
hearing court reopened the proceeding and again took
significant witness testimony, including that of Green, who
testified consistent with his affidavit that he created the
false tape, that he lied at the earlier hearing, and that Ish
never told him that he was involved in the Abbott murder.
Despite
finding that Green had falsely testified about a fabricated
tape, the court adhered to its earlier ruling ordering the
vacatur of Bellamy's judgment of conviction. The court
found parts of Green's testimony inculpating Ish at the
initial hearing credible despite the fake tape and
Green's subsequent recantation. Bellamy, 2010 WL
143462, at *6. The Second Department affirmed, agreeing that
a "reasonable jury could find . . . that [Green's]
original unsolicited implication of [Ish] was truthful,
regardless of [Green's] later recantation of those
statements." 84 A.D.3d 1260, 1262 (2d Dep't 2011).
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, 17 N.Y.3d
813, Bellamy was released from prison, and the state
dismissed the indictment.[13]
IV.
The Instant Civil Action
In
March 2012, Bellamy filed the instant action in the Eastern
District of New York against the City of New York, Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen, and two John Doe defendants.
[14]
At the core of Bellamy's complaint were allegations that
the Defendants engaged in material misconduct during the
investigation and trial that deprived him of his rights to
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and to a fair
trial under the Sixth Amendment. In short, Bellamy's
claims at issue here fall into three general categories: (i)
claims that Detectives Solomeno and Gillen fabricated
material evidence; (ii) claims that Detectives Solomeno and
Gillen withheld material evidence; and (iii) Monell
claims against the City of New York based upon allegations
that, pursuant to a policy, the QCDA withheld the full scope
of relocation benefits it provided to Sanchez and that, due
to a systemic failure to train or discipline, ADA Guy's
summation was improper.[15] Specifically, as relevant on appeal,
Bellamy's complaint alleges that:
(i) Detective Gillen fabricated evidence that Bellamy
referenced a murder in the squad car that escorted him to the
police station on May 13, 1994 and falsely testified as to
such at Bellamy's criminal trial;
(ii) Detective Solomeno fabricated evidence in the form of
the contents of a DD-5 that reported that during her December
1, 2005 interview Walker identified Bellamy as the individual
she saw on the morning of the Abbott murder;
(iii) Detective Gillen improperly pressured Carter to
identify Bellamy in the lineup conducted on May 14, 1994,
even though Carter was unsure if Bellamy was the person he
saw stab Abbott;
(iv) Detective Gillen and/or Solomeno failed to disclose
statements Sanchez made during the investigation indicating
that the morning she saw Bellamy was a Sunday, rather than a
Saturday, the day on which Abbott was killed;
(v) Detective Gillen failed to disclose Sanchez's
statement during the investigation that the person she saw
with Bellamy on the morning of the Abbott murder was Terrill
Lee;
(vi) Detective Gillen failed to disclose Sanchez's
statements to police officers on April 9, 1994, the day of
Abbott's murder, that she "didn't see
anything" and "didn't know anything";
(vii) Detectives Solomeno and Gillen failed to disclose
Walker's statements during her December 1, 2005 interview
that Bellamy was not the person she saw on the
morning of the Abbott murder and that Walker refused to sign
the DD-5 to the effect that she had seen Bellamy;
(viii) the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense the
full relocation benefits received by Sanchez as part of her
participation in the QCDA's witness protection program;
and
(ix) ADA Guy committed prejudicial summation misconduct.
The
district court stayed discovery on the core of Bellamy's
Monell claims (viii and ix above) but allowed
discovery to proceed in full on the claims against Detectives
Solomeno and Gillen. See Dkt. No. 52. The parties
took substantial deposition testimony, including from the
following witnesses: (i) Bellamy; (ii) Detective Gillen;
(iii) Detective Solomeno; (iv) ADA Antignani; (v) ADA Guy;
(vi) Michael Mansfield, the Director of the QCDA's
witness protection program; (vii) Daniel Cox, the
administrator of the QCDA's witness protection program
responsible for Sanchez's participation; (viii) Sanchez;
and (ix) Walker. We refer to the deposition testimony in
detail in our forthcoming analysis of Bellamy's claims,
but simply preview here that the deposition testimony, like
the testimony at the § 440 proceeding, provides further,
albeit at times conflicting, accounts of the circumstances
surrounding Abbott's murder and the resulting
investigation.
At the
close of discovery on the claims against Detectives Solomeno
and Gillen, both parties cross-moved for summary judgment. In
an 80-page ruling, the district court granted summary
judgment to Defendants dismissing Bellamy's claims
against Detectives Solomeno and Gillen and dismissing the
Monell claims on the pleadings. Bellamy v. City
of New York, 2017 WL 2189528 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2017).
First, the district court dismissed Bellamy's malicious
prosecution claims against the detectives on the ground that
Bellamy failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether
he was prosecuted without probable cause.[16] Id.
at *29-34. Second, it dismissed the core of Bellamy's due
process and fair trial claims against Detectives Solomeno and
Gillen upon concluding that Bellamy raised no material issue
of fact as to whether either detective fabricated or withheld
material evidence. Id. at *34-36. Third, it
dismissed Bellamy's "shocks the conscience" due
process claims against the detectives as duplicative of
Bellamy's malicious prosecution claims. Id. at
*36. Fourth, it dismissed Bellamy's intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims against the
detectives on the ground that Bellamy raised no triable issue
as to whether the detectives conduct was "extreme and
outrageous," and that, regardless, the claims were also
duplicative of Bellamy's malicious prosecution claim.
Id. at *37. Finally, the district court dismissed
Bellamy's Monell claims against the City on the
pleadings for two reasons: (i) in light of Van de Kamp v.
Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009), the City of New York
cannot as a matter of law be liable for the alleged policies
of the QCDA's office; and (ii) regardless, Bellamy did
not sufficiently establish the underlying constitutional due
process violations he alleged: the non- disclosure of
Sanchez's relocation benefits and ADA Guy's summation
misconduct.[17] Id. at *37-41.
Bellamy's
appeal challenges only the dismissal of his due process and
fair trial claims against Detectives Solomeno and Gillen and
his Monell claims against the City of New York. His
baseline position is that (i) as to the claims against
Detectives Solomeno and Gillen, the evidence as a whole (from
the trial, the post-conviction hearing, and the depositions
in the instant civil case), presents disputed issues of
material fact that necessitate a trial, and (ii) with respect
to ...