In a Thursday objection to the town of New Milford's motion for judgment as a matter of law, Ralph "Ricky" Birch reminded U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden that federal jurists can torpedo verdicts only under limited circumstances under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Jury verdicts can be set aside if they are "the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded persons could not arrive at a verdict against it," Birch wrote, quoting Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., a 2008 Second Circuit case.
"The standard is a high one, met only in rare occasions," he added, quoting Conte v. Emmons, a Second Circuit case from 2018.
According to Birch, a federal jury in March reasonably concluded that state police detective Andrew Ocif fed Todd Cocchia details the star murder trial witness did not know about the 1985 murder of Everett Carr.
Former New Milford police officer David Shortt, who has since died, failed to intervene in that fabrication, Birch argued.
A jury found that Shortt acted negligently, and Birch says that verdict was sound.
Cocchia, who claimed to have known Birch from a previous juvenile stint, testified during Birch's 1989 felony murder trial that Birch had confessed to killing Carr, but Cocchia recanted that testimony 27 years later, Birch's federal civil rights attorneys argued during this year's trial.
The town's post-verdict bid to escape the judgment must also fail because the Second Circuit already spoke on the very same issue the town raised in its motion, Birch said on Thursday.
In a 2024 mid-case appeal, the Second Circuit concluded that "a reasonable jury could find that Ocif improperly coached Cocchia to make false statements inculpating Birch, and that Shortt witnessed this coaching," Birch reminded Judge Bolden, quoting the appellate panel's opinion in Birch v. Town of New Milford.
That means Judge Bolden is blocked from issuing judgment in the town's favor under another Second Circuit case, Kerman v. City of New York, Birch said.
Under Kerman, when an appellate panel concludes the evidence is sufficient to support a trial, a trial court cannot upend an eventual verdict by finding the same evidence insufficient, Birch explained.
Because the Second Circuit's 2024 decision already found Birch's evidence sufficient, the town's motion is "barred by the appellate mandate," the exoneree argued.
Birch also said his March 2024 settlement with the state of Connecticut does not affect his March 2025 federal jury trial win against the town, for several reasons.
First, the state's litigation settlement was not an award by the state claims commissioner, Birch said. Therefore, it does not trigger a municipal offset provision that allows local governments to escape judgments in certain claims already paid by the state, he argued.
Second, the offset provision was adopted after his settlement and does not apply retroactively, he said.
The town of New Milford on April 15 asked Judge Bolden to either enter a judgment in its favor or zero out Birch's verdict based on the offset statute.
According to the town, the federal jury's verdict cannot stand because Cocchia already told investigators Birch confessed to stabbing and killing a man before the snitch was given additional details about the crime.
Therefore, "Ocif did not fabricate Cocchia's initial statement," the town argued.
The informant's testimony was the crucial link that led to the charges, the trial and the conviction, Birch argued in federal court earlier this year.
Prosecutors in 1989 said Birch and an associate, Shawn Henning, beat Carr, stabbed him 27 times and slit his throat during a botched burglary during the overnight hours of Dec. 1 through Dec. 2, 1985.
Though Birch and Henning were small-time burglars trying to feed a drug habit, they weren't violent, Birch's federal attorneys said.
According to Birch, the state's burglary-gone-wrong theory didn't make sense during his 1989 criminal trial. Few items were taken from Carr's home, and the only evidence linking the then-teens to the crime was a witness who claimed a loud car might have been in the area when Carr died, he argued.
The true killer left several bloody shoeprints inside Carr's home. The pattern didn't match any of the shoes Birch or Henning wore, and the size was far too small to have been left by either of the two teens, Birch's witnesses told the federal jury.
Plus, no evidence from the bloody scene was ever recovered inside the dirty, unkempt car where Birch and Henning had been living, his attorneys added.
Unknown DNA was eventually found mixed with the victim's blood, they noted.
New Milford's deputy police chief during the Carr murder investigation testified in March that Birch and Henning had maintained their innocence in the 1980s. He said he believed they were not involved with the killing, but he testified that he was taken off the case for voicing that belief.
The Connecticut Supreme Court in 2019 granted habeas corpus petitions from both Birch and Henning, and state prosecutors refused to try them a second time.
In March, a federal jury agreed Shortt was negligent but rejected Birch's separate federal civil rights claims.
Judge Bolden on March 28 increased Birch's award to nearly $7.7 million, adding nearly $2 million in interest based on the town's rejection of a sealed settlement offer.
Attorneys for the town and for Birch did not immediately respond to 极速赛车 requests for comment on Friday.
Birch is represented by David A. Lebowitz, Douglas E. Lieb and Alyssa Isidoridy of Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP and Damon A. R. Kirschbaum of Kirschbaum Law Group LLC.
The town and Shortt's estate are represented by Elliot B. Spector, Jeffrey O. McDonald and Forrest Noirot of Hassett & George PC.
The case is Birch v. New Milford et al., case number 3:20-cv-01790, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
--Editing by Patrick Reagan.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
