Summary
This federal district court order denies a plaintiff's motion for a new trial regarding her Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against a police officer and the City of Pawtucket. The court held that the jury's verdict for the defendants was supported by credible testimony and that conflicting accounts regarding racial animus and adverse action are proper matters for jury determination. Consequently, the judge found no grounds to override the verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a).
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court should grant a new trial under Rule 59(a) because the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence
- Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie equal protection claim
Holdings
- The motion for a new trial is denied because conflicting testimony and credibility determinations are not sufficient grounds for granting a new trial under Rule 59(a).
- The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, so the equal protection claim was not proven.
Key quotations
““authorizes a district court to override a jury verdict and order a new trial ‘if the verdict is against the law, against the weight of the credible evidence, or tantamount to a miscarriage of justice.’”” (at 16)
““conflicting testimony or a question as to the credibility of a witness are not sufficient grounds for granting a new trial.”” (at 551)
Factual background
At an October 17, 2017 Pawtucket City Council meeting, Officer Craig Letourneau approached plaintiff Cristina Bento, the only person of color in the audience. The parties dispute whether the officer's approach was racially motivated. The jury found that the officer’s actions were not based on race and credited his testimony over the plaintiff’s.
Procedural history
Case tried to a jury which returned a verdict for the defendants on all counts. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(a) which was denied.