Hyatt v. May
| Decision Date | 29 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL 1:19-cv-00250-MR-WCM |
| Parties | MARCUS HYATT, Plaintiff, v. JEFF MAY, in his individual capacity, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant May's Post-Trial Motions [Doc. 145].
On January 20, 2018, officers from the Buncombe County Sheriff's Office (“BCSO”), acting on a tip conducted a traffic stop of a car driven by Brandon Pickens in which the Plaintiff Marcus Hyatt was a passenger. Plaintiff Hyatt was detained for the next several hours while officers searched the car and its occupants for illegal narcotics. After completing the search of the car, the officers procured a search warrant and conducted a strip search of Plaintiff Hyatt in a nearby convenience store bathroom. Ultimately, Plaintiff Hyatt was not found to be in possession of any controlled substances, and he was released without charges.
At the same time that Plaintiff Hyatt was being detained, his girlfriend, Plaintiff Ashley Barrett, was stopped by BCSO officers in a separate traffic stop on suspicion that she was attempting to dispose of controlled substances at the couple's apartment. Following a search of Plaintiff Barrett's vehicle and the couple's apartment, no controlled substances were found, and Plaintiff Barrett was also released without charges.
The Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and North Carolina state law, challenging the officers' actions during the respective traffic stops and searches. Specifically, Plaintiff Hyatt asserted claims for false imprisonment, false arrest, and assault and battery under state law and for unlawful search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment[1] under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against BCSO deputies J.D. Lambert, Jeff May, and Katherine Lewis. Plaintiff Hyatt also asserted a claim for unreasonable sexually invasive search in violation of the Fourth Amendment under § 1983 against Defendants Lambert and May. Plaintiff Barrett asserted claims for false imprisonment and false arrest under state law and for unlawful seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment under §1983 against Defendants Lambert and Lewis. The Plaintiffs also asserted a claim for action under the bond against Defendant Miller and Defendant Western Surety Company.[2]
From March 17, 2021 to March 25, 2021, the Court held a jury trial in this matter. Following the conclusion of the evidence, on March 22nd, the Court delivered the first set of instructions to the jury and presented them with a verdict sheet (“the First Verdict Sheet”) setting forth nine (9) issues.[3]The jury deliberated from approximately 4:17 p.m. to 7:50 p.m., when the jury advised the Court through a note (Note 4)[4] that they wished to recess for the evening. Deliberations continued the following day, March 23rd. At 3:15 p.m. on March 23rd, the jury sent out a note (Note 5), advising that they had reached an impasse. While the Court and counsel discussed how to respond, however, at 3:22 p.m., the jury sent out another note (Note 6), advising that they had decided to continue deliberations. At 3:34 p.m., the jury advised that it had reached a verdict (Note 7). Upon returning to the courtroom, the foreperson of the jury confirmed that they had reached a verdict and that the verdict was unanimous among the jurors. The jury answered the issues on the First Verdict Sheet as follows:
[Doc. 132: First Verdict Sheet]. Following the return of the First Verdict Sheet, neither side requested to poll the jury.
Based upon the jury's answers to these issues, the Court convened another charge conference and drafted another verdict sheet (“the Second Verdict Sheet”), setting forth eight (8) additional issues (Issue Nos. 10 through 17). On the following day, March 24th, the parties made their closing arguments to the jury on these additional issues, and the Court instructed the jury as to the law. The jury was sent out to deliberate at 10:11 a.m.
At 12:05 p.m., the jury sent out a note (Note 8), stating that one of its members, Juror #6, was having a panic attack. At 12:34 p.m., the jury sent out another note (Note 9), advising that Juror #6 had calmed down and was able to proceed.
At 5:34 p.m., the jury sent out another note (Note 10), advising that they had reached an impasse with respect to the issues on the Second Verdict Sheet. The Court proposed giving an Allen[6] charge to the jury and read the proposed language to counsel. Neither side objected to the language of the charge. The Court provided the Allen charge to the jury, and they returned to the jury room to deliberate. At 8:21 p.m., the jury advised the Court that they wished to go home for the evening (Note 11), and court was recessed for the day.
On March 25th, the jury resumed deliberations at 9:10 a.m. The Court began jury selection in an unrelated criminal case. During that jury selection, the jury from the present case sent out another note (Note 12), which advised that the jury had been unable to come to a unanimous verdict on the Second Verdict Sheet. The Court completed jury selection in the criminal matter and reconvened the parties in the afternoon to discuss the jury's note. After extensive discussion and consultation with their clients, the parties stipulated that the Court would ask the jury to return the Second Verdict Sheet with answers to any of the issues on which they could unanimously agree and that, as to any issues that the jury did not agree to unanimously the Court would serve as the finder of fact.
The jury was then called into the courtroom and advised to complete the Second Verdict Sheet with respect to any issues which they agreed to unanimously. At 3:24 p.m., the jury returned with only a partially completed Second Verdict Sheet. Following the pronouncement of the partial verdict, Defendant May's counsel requested to poll the jury. Upon polling the jury, it was determined that with respect to Issue Nos. 10 and 12.B., the jury unanimously answered as follows:
[Doc. 134: Second Verdict Sheet].
It was also determined, however, that the jury's verdicts with respect to at least one of the other two issues that had been answered, Issue Nos. 13.A. and 14, was not in fact unanimous among all the jurors. The jury again retired to the jury deliberation room to determine whether they had, in fact, reached a verdict as to all of the answered issues.
While the jury was out, defense counsel requested-for the first time- to poll the jury as to the issues set forth on the First Verdict Sheet. Noting that the First Verdict Sheet had been returned three days prior, the Court denied counsel's request as untimely.
At 3:45 p.m., the jury returned to the courtroom to announce that they were deadlocked as to Issue No. 13.A. and Issue No. 14.
Ultimately, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and deadlocked as to the following issues on the Second Verdict Sheet:
To continue reading
Request your trial