Lee v. The City of Troy

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Atrial can be a chaotic affair, and it falls to the presiding court to keep that chaotic potential as muted as possible. The court’s responsibility is to conduct a days-long (at least) event involving (at least) two parties with diametrically opposed interests as they present a parade of witnesses and other evidence. In the process, the court needs to ensure that the parties and witnesses adhere to a complex system of rules and guidelines concerning the admissibility of evidence and the propriety of conduct. When the parties and the Court are fully and properly prepared, the result is something of a symphony. From several disparate — and even occasionally contrary — voices a harmonious whole emerges for the jury to absorb. Take that preparation away and you get a dysphonic mess. This case is an abject lesson in how to avoid the latter outcome. Its moral? The importance of keeping the court informed, especially when it comes to allegations of sanctionable misconduct concerning the most important evidence in the case. The story played out from May 10 through May 12, 2021. During those three days, a jury trial was held concerning plaintiff Lamont Lee (“Lee” or “plaintiff”)’s claim that defendants the City of Troy and its police officers Christopher Parker, Louis Perfetti, Justin Ashe, and Kyle Jones (collectively “defendants”) used excessive force in arresting him on the night of March 3, 2018. The entire arrest was captured on video, and the Court expected that video to be the trial’s centerpiece. What the Court had no reason to expect, however, was that each party intended to present its own version of the video. Nor did the Court expect that defendants would accuse plaintiff of improperly altering his version. Instead, the Court learned both details for the first time about half an hour before trial began. The validity of each version of the video thus became a central dispute as the evidence came in. At the close of trial, the jury found no cause of action against defendants. Judgment was entered accordingly, and Lee’s complaint was dismissed. On June 9, 2021, plaintiff moved for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the jury verdict or in the alternative for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 50(b) and Rule 59(a)(1)(A), respectively. In part, those motions complain that the Court erred in its handling of defendants’ arguments that their version of the video was the “official” one and that plaintiff’s was “manufactured.” Those motions, having been fully briefed, will now be decided on the basis of the submissions and without oral argument. II. BACKGROUND Understanding how the trial in this case unfolded first requires understanding how the Court found itself with two competing versions of the same video at the last minute. Lee’s arrest and the force defendants used to bring it about were both captured from beginning to end on a security camera belonging to a nearby barbershop. As is often the case, the video’s existence served a streamlining function by circumscribing the universe of facts the parties could genuinely dispute. But when a second version emerged, the disputes in this case took on an entirely different and unexpected dimension. A. The Two Versions As has been mentioned, there are two main versions of the video depicting Lee’s arrest. However, the presentation of those versions gets complicated: defendants’ version is split into two parts, while plaintiff’s is split into three. Between the five clips resulting from those splits and two additional clips plaintiff proposed in advance of trial but did not end up using, there are seven total video clips the Court has reviewed in deciding plaintiff’s present motion: (1) plaintiff’s first proposed version (“C-1(A)”), submitted on April 23, 2021, which merely combined defendants’ two clips into one; (2) plaintiff’s abbreviated cut of his own version of the video, provided on April 29, 2021 (“C-1(B)”); (3) defendants’ first video, which covers the first half of the March 3, 2018 encounter (“D-8″); (4) defendants’ second video, which covers the second half of the arrest (“D-9″); (5) plaintiff’s first video shown at trial, covering the drug transaction (“P-12(A)”); (6) plaintiff’s second trial video, showing plaintiff’s arrest (“P-12(B)”); and (7) plaintiff’s third and final trial video, which shows the aftermath of plaintiff’s arrest (“P-12(C)”). To provide context for the relevant facts of this case, the Court will cabin itself for the moment to the two versions of the video the jury was shown: P-12 and D-8/D-9. In both of those versions, Lee approaches a pair of people talking outside of a bar at 9:45 p.m. on March 3, 2018. Dkt. 91-6 (“P-12″), P-12(A), 9:45:10;¹ Dkt. 90-3, Part One of Exhibit C-2 to the Declaration of Rhiannon Spencer dated 6/3/2021 (“D-8″), 9:45:10. Both parties agree that this conversation builds to a hand-to-hand drug transaction at approximately 9:52 p.m. P-12(A), 9:51:00-52:40; D-8, 9:51:00-52:40. Four police officers, defendants,² then quickly converge on plaintiff and the other party to the drug deal. P-12(B), 9:52:40-55; D-8, 9:52:40-55. One defendant directs plaintiff up against a wall. P-12(B), 9:52:49; D-8, 9:52:49. The videos then show Lee’s left hand drifting slowly toward his front left pocket. P-12(B), 9:52:54; D-8, 9:52:54. In response, three of the officers restrain plaintiff, and attempt to bring him to the ground by striking his legs with their knees. P-12(B), 9:52:54-53:07; D-8, 9:52:54-53:07. Plaintiff manages to stay upright, even when the fourth defendant approaches him from behind, grabs him, and attempts to drag him down. P-12(B), 9:53:07-12; D-8, 9:53:07-12. The four defendants then attempt to secure plaintiff’s hands. P-12(B), 9:53:12-48; D-8, 9:53:12-48. The parties continue to struggle until the videos show plaintiff spinning away from defendants, breaking their holds on him. P-12(B), 9:53:48-56; D-8, 9:53:48-56. Both versions of the video then show defendants regaining control over Lee’s body and dragging him to the ground. P-12(B), 9:53:56-54:00; D-8, 9:53:56-54:00. Defendants then slowly flatten plaintiff out, until one of the defendants manages to pin plaintiff’s right arm to the ground under the defendant’s knee. P-12(B), 9:54:00-14; D-8, 9:54:00-14. Another defendant then strikes plaintiff with his knee somewhere in his torso or legs, although the videos are far from clear about where the blows land. P-12(B), 9:54:14-19; D-8, 9:54:14-19. Both videos show all four defendants continuing to struggle with plaintiff, until one of the defendants — later identified as Kyle Jones (“Jones”) — strikes plaintiff repeatedly with his hand or fist. P-12(B), 9:54:25-30; D-8, 9:54:25-30. Here at last the two versions of the video diverge. In D-8, defendants’ version of the video, Jones is kneeling on his left knee with his right leg extended to the side, his back to the camera, directly in front of Lee’s head and shoulders. D-8, 9:54:30. The hat plaintiff had been wearing is lying on the ground near Jones’s right knee. Id. Jones begins to rise. Id. The footage for D-8 abruptly ends the instant the timestamp changes from 9:54:30 to 9:54:31. Id. at 9:54:30-31. At the beginning of D-9, defendants’ second clip, the timestamp immediately changes from 9:54:31 to 9:54:32. Dkt. 90-3, Part Two of Exhibit C-2 to the Declaration of Rhiannon Spencer dated 6/3/2021 (“D-9″), 9:54:31-32. Jones is still rising, but Lee’s hat has moved at least a foot to the right, and appears to be rolling from side to side. Id. Jones braces himself, then drops his knee on plaintiff twice from above. Id. at 9:54:32-36. It is less than perfectly clear where or whether either of the knee strikes lands. Id. But the second knee strike is particularly difficult to follow because of the positioning of Jones’ body. Id. Meanwhile, Lee’s version of the video for the same timeframe shows Jones kneeling on his left knee with his right leg extended to the side, his back to the camera, directly in front of plaintiff’s head and shoulders. P-12(B), 9:54:30. The hat plaintiff had been wearing is lying on the ground near Jones’s right knee. Id. Jones begins to rise. Id. Once Jones reaches the apex of his motion, he brings his right knee down on plaintiff. Id. at 9:54:31-32. Jones’s right foot catches plaintiff’s hat as his knee descends, knocking it at least a foot to the right, where it comes to a rest after rolling briefly from side to side. Id. Jones begins to rise again. Id. Once Jones comes fully up, he braces himself, then drops his knee on plaintiff twice more from above. Id. at 9:54:32-36. The remainder of P-12(B-C) is substantively identical to D-9. Both videos then show defendants placing Lee in handcuffs and removing him from the scene. P-12(B), 9:54:36-56:59; P-12(C), 9:56:46-10:01:03;³ D-9, 9:54:36-10:01:03. In summary, the only substantive difference between the two is that in plaintiff’s version of the video, Jones uses three knee strikes, while in defendants’ version Jones uses only two, with a brief moment prior to those knee strikes missing from defendants’ video. Dkt. 91-4, p. 116⁴ (defendant acknowledging that small amount of time is missing from defendants’ version of video). B. Pre-Trial Disclosures If the slight difference between the two versions of the video seems innocuous, the parties at least thought it was worth sparring over from the start. Apparently, though, they did not think the difference important enough to bring to the Court’s attention. On April 23, 2021, Lee’s and defendants’ counsel spoke privately over the phone in advance of trial. Dkt. 93 (“Spencer Aff.”), 7. One of the topics the parties discussed was stipulating to certain exhibits. Dkt. 90-2, 4. Predictably, that included the video of plaintiff’s arrest. See id., 5. Defense counsel had disclosed both D-8 and D-9 to Lee in the course of discovery. Dkt. 90-2,

6, 8. For the first time during the April 23, 2021 phone call, Lee’s counsel⁵ notified the defense that they intended to combine those two videos into a single, seamless clip, C-1(A). Id.