Gantt v. City of L.A.

• Decision Date: 31 May 2013
• Docket Number: Nos. 11–55000,11–55002.,s. 11–55000
• Citation: 717 F.3d 702
• Parties: Timothy GANTT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Rick Lane, # 116702; Jose L. Reyes, # 21778; Al Gonzales, # 15614; Louis Trovato; Willie Williams, Defendants–Appellees. Michael Smith, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. City of Los Angeles; Rick Lane, # 16702; Jose L. Reyes, # 21778; Al Gonzales, # 15614; Louis Trovato; Willie Williams, Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

717 F.3d 702

Timothy GANTT, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.CITY OF LOS ANGELES; Rick Lane, # 116702; Jose L. Reyes, # 21778; Al Gonzales, # 15614; Louis Trovato; Willie Williams, Defendants–Appellees.

Michael Smith, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.City of Los Angeles; Rick Lane, # 16702; Jose L. Reyes, # 21778; Al Gonzales, # 15614; Louis Trovato; Willie Williams, Defendants–Appellees.

Nos. 11–55000, 11–55002.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.

Filed May 31, 2013.

Emmanuel C. Akudinobi (argued) and Chijioke O. Ikonte, Law Offices of Akudinobi & Ikonte, Los Angeles, CA, for the Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Lisa S. Berger (argued) and Amy Jo Field, Deputy City Attorneys, Office of the City Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Otis D. Wright, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. 2:08–cv–05979–ODW–CW, 2:09–cv–08565–ODW–CW.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD and BARRY G. SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff–Appellants Timothy Gantt and Michael Smith were tried and convicted of the August 19, 1992 murder of Kalpesh Vardhan. An Arthur Andersen Consulting employee, Vardhan was stabbed to death in a parking garage in downtown Los Angeles. This is the second time this matter has come before us. In 2004, we reversed the denial of Gantt's federal habeas petition and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Gantt v. Roe, 389 F.3d 908, 916 (9th Cir.2004).¹ That resulted in the issuance of the writ, a retrial and, after the key witness recanted his testimony, the dismissal of all charges with prejudice during the course of the trial. Smith won release in 2009 on a habeas petition. The instant appeal concerns the unsuccessful lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by Gantt and Smith following their release. The case proceeded to trial and resulted in a verdict for the defendants on all claims. On appeal, Gantt and Smith challenge certain jury instructions and evidentiary rulings. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

BACKGROUND

During the original criminal trial that resulted in Appellants' convictions, three witnesses attempted to connect Gantt and Smith to the murder. The sole alleged eyewitness to the crime was a local car burglar named David Rosemond, whom the police picked up two months after the murder on a burglary charge. Rosemond claimed he was in the parking garage on the morning Vardhan was killed, looking to steal car radios to finance a drug habit. He testified that he saw Gantt beating up the victim and Smith standing next to them, holding a gun. Rosemond did not intervene or call for help but, after the assailants had fled, he approached the scene and took the dying victim's ATM card.

LAPD homicide detectives Jose Reyes and Rick Lane, both Defendant–Appellees here, interrogated Rosemond. Rosemond testified that, at the time he was taken into custody, he had been awake for approximately two days straight on a crack binge and was still under the influence when he made his identifications. Over the course of the hours-long interrogation, the detectives threatened to charge him with the murder if he did not provide information: “They said if I didn't give them something, that I would go down for it.” ² Rosemond also testified as follows:

It was some days. It wasn't just one day. It was like, I don't know, four or five or six hours in that little room. And then I would go back to my cell and they would bring me back the next day and ask me more questions and show me pictures. It was kind of like trying to scare me. I don't know if that was their intention.

Additionally, Rosemond told Reyes and Lane that he believed Gantt had once robbed him, but this statement did not make it into their reports or the chronological log, or come out at trial. During the first trial, Rosemond testified on cross-examination that he bore no animosity towardsGantt and had no reason to have any biased view of him.

The District Attorney's office initially rejected the case, in part, because of concerns about Rosemond's credibility and granting Rosemond immunity. The evidence was subsequently reviewed by a different prosecutor who decided to go forward with the case after re-interviewing Rosemond.

The second witness was Kevin Shorts, a CPA at Arthur Andersen, who claimed he saw Gantt and Smith near the scene of the crime around the time of the murder. Shorts told Lane and Reyes that he saw Gantt driving a vehicle on the sixth floor of the garage and that he was able to see Gantt's face reflected in a rear-view mirror for a matter of seconds. He identified Gantt from a photo array. However, Shorts initially identified an individual by the name of Raymond Wilson as the accomplice who was standing outside the vehicle, before identifying Smith. While parked on the sixth floor of the garage reading his mail, Shorts did not hear any screaming or sounds of an attack or struggle; nor did he see Rosemond. Shorts collected a $20,000 reward for his testimony.

The third witness was Jose Cubias, the parking garage attendant on duty. Cubias did not witness the crime either, but he did see a car with two black men exit the garage. He testified that he recalled the vehicle because it was the only no-pay ticket that day—the car was in the garage for only approximately five minutes and, therefore, no fee was charged. Cubias identified the vehicle from a composite sketch and initially was able to say Gantt's photo resembled the driver.

The only physical evidence potentially linking Gantt to the crime was a matchbook from an Indian restaurant in the Los Angeles area, which was found on his person at the time of his arrest. The prosecution's theory was that this item was lifted from Vardhan's person at the time of the crime. The matchbook contained a handwritten phone number, but the handwriting analysis could not conclusively link it to the victim. The 19–digit phone number connected to an individual in Bangladesh who did not recognize Vardhan's name or photo. The man's son, who worked at the restaurant, also did not recognize Vardhan from the photo. In 2004, we held that the prosecutors had violated Brady by failing to disclose that these individuals had not recognized the victim. Gantt, 389 F.3d at 910–11. We reversed the denial of Gantt's federal habeas petition on the grounds that given the weakness of the prosecution's evidence and the state's reliance on the matchbook, these Brady violations were not harmless and could well have altered the outcome of the case. Id. at 915–16. Our decision did not reach any of Gantt's other claims. We remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the disclosure violations had in fact occurred. Id. at 916. On remand, the district court granted Gantt's habeas petition, and a retrial was scheduled.

In the middle of the retrial in 2008, Rosemond recanted his original testimony, which had pinned the murder on Gantt and Smith. The prosecution moved to dismiss all charges against Gantt with prejudice, and he was released. Smith subsequently prosecuted a writ of habeas corpus and was released in 2009.

Gantt and Smith filed separate Section 1983 actions, which were consolidated for discovery and trial. Gantt's Second Amended Complaint stated the following claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) due process violation based on Brady violations, failure to preserve or analyze evidence, and fabrication of evidence; (3) reckless indifference to civil rights; (4) conspiracy under § 1985; (5) conspiracy to violate Gantt's constitutional rights under § 1983; and (6) Monell liability. He named as defendants retired detectives Lane and Reyes, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, Al Gonzales, Lieutenant Louis Trovato, LAPD Chief Willie Williams, Deputy D.A. Sterling Norris, and D.A. Investigator Edward Boyer.³

The Smith Complaint, filed over six months later in November 2009, against the City of Los Angeles, Lane, Reyes, Gonzales, Lieutenant Trovato, and LAPD Chief Williams, stated the following claims: (1) malicious prosecution; (2) due process violations premised on the nondisclosure of Brady and Giglio evidence; (3) failure to gather, preserve, and/or disclose material exculpatory evidence; (4) fabrication of evidence; (5) unconstitutionally suggestive line-up and identification procedures; (6) Monell liability; (7) reckless indifference to civil rights; (8) failure to intervene to prevent civil rights violations; and (9) conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

On April 9, 2009, the court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the County of Los Angeles, Deputy D.A. Norris, and D.A. Investigator Boyer, citing absolute prosecutorial immunity and ruling that Monell liability does not apply to a county in such circumstances.

The case was divided into individual liability, Monell liability, and punitive damages phases. Gantt and Smith dismissed their claims against Gonzales, Williams, and Trovato, and withdrew their § 1985 conspiracy claims. Additionally, Smith withdrew his claim for reckless indifference to civil rights violations, as well as his claim for failure to intervene to prevent civil rights violations. Thus, the case proceeded on the malicious prosecution, due process and fabrication of evidence, Brady/Giglio, failure to gather and preserve evidence, unconstitutional identification, conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under § 1985, and Monell liability claims against Defendants Lane, Reyes, and the City of Los Angeles. A jury returned a verdict for the Defendants on all these claims.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “The standard of review for an alleged error in jury instructions depends on the nature of the claimed error.” Jenkins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 22 F.3d...