When Stephen P. Smith and Joel Adler of Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis in Coral Gables teamed with Irene Porter of Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein in Miami to defend a malicious prosecution lawsuit, their clients had already lost one trial.

Jurors had awarded a $4.6 million verdict to plaintiff William Rolland, who claimed security guard Jorge Acuna, his employer International Security Management Group Inc. and other defendants had falsely accused him of making a bomb threat at the New World Tower in downtown Miami.

But when that was reversed on appeal over jury instruction issues, the defense had a second chance.

It was morning on July 25, 2011, when Rolland, a videographer from California, entered the New World Tower while chatting to a client on the phone. He had a project planned the following day for Cisco Systems, a tenant at the tower, which was also home to the Israeli and German consulates. Guard Acuna approached, but Rolland waved him off.

Then, after some back and forth over whether Rolland had the necessary security clearance to enter and film the outside of the building, things got heated. What happened a few minutes later is in dispute.

"At that point, it is Mr. Acuna's position that Mr. Rolland was angry and shouting, and he made a threat at that point that he would be blowing up the building the next day," Smith said.

When Rolland left, Acuna reported the incident to consulate security, who called the police. Rolland was arrested a few streets away and charged with making a hoax bomb threat—carrying a possible five-year prison sentence. The FBI and Homeland Security assumed jurisdiction, and Rolland spent five days in solitary confinement before being released on bond.

Rolland has continually denied making the threat and sued after he was acquitted at trial, alleging false accusations damaged his reputation and caused emotional harm.

After a jury sided with the plaintiff in 2016, claims against building managers, engineers and associated companies settled. But Acuna and his employer appealed, winning a new trial.

Related story: Jury Awards $4.6 Million to Man Wrongly Arrested for Bomb Threat

|

'There are some things you can't say'

When Smith, Adler and Porter joined the case in January, they resolved to take a fresh approach in front of the Third District Court of Appeal.

"Instead of doubling down and defending the federal prosecution and the criminal trial, it's our position that we did not have to prove either that the government was justified in pursuing this prosecution or that [Rolland] made this threat beyond a reasonable doubt," Smith said.

This time, the defense argued that Acuna heard the comment and, because of his responsibility to everyone in the building, had to take it seriously—even if it wasn't a credible threat.

"Perhaps he may have been joking, perhaps he did it out of frustration, but we are not the federal government. We did not need to prove that the federal government needed to bring these charges or was justified in bringing these charges," Smith said. "All that we had to show was that Jorge Acuna did the right thing. He heard this threat, and at that point, he had to act."

With negligence claims thrown out, the plaintiff had to prove intentional torts by showing that Acuna intended to file a criminal proceeding over a statement he knew was false.

Though police officers testified at the first trial, this time the defense called every officer who interacted with Rolland. They described his behavior as irate, but that he said the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

"In our view of the evidence, his behavior was consistent with someone who did say this, albeit not someone who meant it seriously as a threat," Smith said.

Smith argued that although he sympathizes with the plaintiff, his client had no other option.

"Nobody would want to put Mr. Rolland through what he went through," Smith said. "But regardless of whether it was sarcastic or a bad joke, there are some things you can't say, and that's one of them."

|

'We will continue to fight'

Rolland's attorneys David H. Pollack and Robert Stickney have moved for a new trial, alleging "outrageous" conduct from the defendants prejudiced the jury and violated pre-trial rulings. They allege the defendants falsely claimed a police report said Rolland had admitted to making the threat, falsely claimed plaintiff's counsel had called Rolland a terrorist and improperly mentioned prior settlements.

"This case has been tried twice," Pollack and Stickney said in an emailed statement. "Plaintiffs' position is outlined in the pending motion for a new trial which is based on several significant matters that arose during defendants' cross examination of plaintiffs' witnesses. We believe that these actions denied Bill Rolland his right to a fair trial and are extensively outlined in the motion for new trial. We will continue to fight for our clients' rights."

For the defense, it wasn't easy to explain why Acuna deviated from company policy by not immediately calling 911 after a bomb threat—something that's supposed to be done without exception. But Smith's team argued this was "an abnormal situation."

"Most bomb threats are made either by means of an email, a letter, or someone calling in the threat, so you need to report it via 911 immediately because, typically, the alleged bomber's not standing in front of you," Smith said.

The defense also used security footage that shows interactions between the two men, though it doesn't include audio.

"At the point which Mr. Acuna has reported and testified numerous times that the threat was made, his body language changes completely," Smith said.

It helped, in Smith's view, that his client stayed cool under cross-examination from the plaintiffs counsel, who probed him on whether he felt disrespected by the plaintiff. According to Smith, Acuna maintained that the safety of everyone in the building came before his personal feelings.

Jurors found Acuna did not falsely accuse Rolland of threatening to blow up the New World Tower or instigate malicious proceedings, and awarded no damages.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas will hear motions for and against a new trial on Jan. 10.

|

Read the verdict:

Case: William Rolland v. International Security Management Group

Case No.: 2012-026854-CA-01

Description: Negligence

Filing date: Jul. 11, 2012

Verdict date: Nov. 8, 2019

Judge: Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas

Plaintiffs attorneys: David H. Pollack, The Law Office of David H. Pollack, Miami; Robert Stickney, Robert W. Stickney P.A., Coral Gables

Defense attorneys: Stephen P. Smith, Joel Adler of Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis, Coral Gables; Irene Porter, Hicks, Porter, Ebenfeld & Stein, Miami

Verdict amount: Defense verdict

More verdicts: