WEXLER v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TZVIA WEXLER

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-5760

CHARMAINE HAWKINS and

JAMES KOENIG

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rufe, J. June 21, 2024

On January 23, 2024, after a five-day trial, a Pennsylvania jury found Defendants

Philadelphia Police Officer Charmaine Hawkins and Detective James Koenig liable on counts of

false arrest, malicious prosecution, and retaliation, and further found Officer Hawkins liable on

counts of assault and battery and excessive force.1 The claims arose from troubling allegations of

police misconduct during and after an altercation between Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler and Officer

Hawkins at the 2019 Philadelphia Pride Parade. This was not a verdict against all law

enforcement officers. In fact, it was anything but. The verdict was specific to two public servants

who failed to execute their sworn roles to protect and defend the citizenry. Defendants have filed

a motion seeking alternative forms of post-trial relief, including a new trial, entry of judgment as

a matter of law, and remittitur of the verdict.2 For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’

motion will be denied, except as to a partial remittitur of the jury’s punitive damages award.

1 Verdict Form at 1–4 [Doc. No. 84]; Civil J. [Doc. No. 87].

2 Defs.’ Mot. Post-Trial Relief [Doc. No. 102].

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In setting forth the following factual background, the Court draws all reasonable

inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the verdict winner.3 On Sunday, June 9, 2019, Mrs. Wexler and

her husband, David Wexler, rode their electric bicycles to synagogue to celebrate the Shavuot

holiday.4 The synagogue is located between 4th and 5th Streets and between Market and Arch

Streets in the City of Philadelphia.5 After the service, Mrs. Wexler rode her bicycle in the

westerly direction of Rittenhouse Square to meet someone for lunch, while Mr. Wexler left in a

different direction for home.6 Unbeknownst to the Wexlers, June 9, 2019, was also the date of

the Philadelphia Pride Parade. As Mrs. Wexler approached the corner of 5th and Market Streets,

she saw a large crowd participating in the parade, so she dismounted her bicycle and began

walking.7

When Mrs. Wexler, walking southbound from Arch to Market Streets, attempted to cross

Market Street on foot, a police officer told her that she could not cross at that intersection and

gestured toward the 6th Street intersection.8 At trial, Mrs. Wexler introduced video evidence

showing officers permitting pedestrians to cross at that intersection.9 Mrs. Wexler began walking

westbound on Market Street toward 6th Street, with the parade on her left side moving in the

3 Blum v. Witco Chem. Corp., 829 F.2d 367, 372 (3d Cir. 1987) (“Because a jury determined the issue, our scope of

review is limited to examining whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, drawing all reasonable

inferences in favor of the verdict winner.”). Among various alternative requests for relief, Defendants seek judgment

as a matter of law “on all but Plaintiff’s excessive force and assault and battery claims against Defendant Hawkins

. . . .” Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 5 [Doc. No. 104]. Accordingly, the sufficiency of the evidence

presented at trial is now at issue as to Plaintiff’s false arrest, malicious prosecution, and retaliation claims.

4 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 62.

5 D. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 26.

6 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 63; D. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 46–47.

7 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 63, 65–66.

8 Id. at 63–64, 67.

9 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 201–06.

opposite direction.10 She then heard Officer Hawkins calling out that she should not be walking

on the street.11 Mrs. Wexler attempted to explain that she had been directed by another officer to

walk toward 6th Street where she could cross Market Street.12 After Officer Hawkins gestured

toward the sidewalk and told Mrs. Wexler a second time to get off of the street, Officer Hawkins

grabbed the bicycle.13

The jury was tasked with weighing the credibility of Mrs. Wexler and Officer Hawkins’s

conflicting testimony about what happened next. Credibility was of central importance at trial

because the incident was not captured on Officer Hawkins’s body-worn camera.14 Officer

Hawkins’s explanation for the lack of footage was that “sometimes when you hit it, it doesn’t

turn on.”15 However, Sergeant Jay Paul Bowen III, an expert on body-worn cameras who

reviewed the device’s audit trail, testified that Officer Hawkins had pushed the button on her

device only one time, at 12:23 p.m.—several minutes after the time of the incident reflected in

police department records—and that the button was not pressed a second time, as required for the

camera to begin recording.16 Officer Hawkins admitted to missing most of the training about

body-worn cameras after they were introduced to her district, but agreed that she had

successfully recorded footage on a few previous occasions before the incident.17 Plaintiff’s

counsel also directed Officer Hawkins to her testimony at the preliminary hearing on the criminal

10 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 120.

11 Id. at 69, 120;

12 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 69, 122.

13 Id. at 69–70, 121–22; Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 225.

14 Bowen Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 266.

15 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 186.

16 Bowen Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 265, 272–73; Joint Ex. 5 (12:15 p.m. in Arrest Report); Joint Ex. 10

(12:18 p.m. in Medical Checklist).

17 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 158, 185–86.

charges in July 2019, during which she stated that “[t]he camera was on and it was buffering but

[she] didn’t get a chance to push it.”18

Mrs. Wexler provided a consistent account of the relevant events from the stand. She

recounted that Officer Hawkins shoved the bicycle into her from behind, moved toward the front

of the bicycle, and then shoved Mrs. Wexler with the bicycle again.19 Mrs. Wexler testified that

she asked for Officer Hawkins’s name and badge number because she “felt like it’s not right

what she’s doing . . . .”20 Mrs. Wexler testified that immediately thereafter, Officer Hawkins—

perhaps, Mrs. Wexler posited, because the request for her badge number was “a trigger”—

grabbed Mrs. Wexler’s neck and choked her for what “felt [like] forever,” to the point that

Mrs. Wexler thought it was “the end of [her] life.”21

Officer Hawkins gave a different account. According to Officer Hawkins, she was

directing the bicycle toward the sidewalk when Mrs. Wexler “jerked the bike” and hit

Officer Hawkins on her left side.22 Officer Hawkins expressed her belief that the first hit was

unintentional, but when Mrs. Wexler jerked the bicycle a second time, Officer Hawkins told

Mrs. Wexler that she “was going to be sorry” if she hit her with the bicycle again.23 Officer

Hawkins testified that Mrs. Wexler then jerked the bicycle “at least three more times after

that”—i.e., a total of five times—but when pressed, she later revised her testimony to say that it

was merely “several times.”24 When Plaintiff’s counsel directed Officer Hawkins to a

18 Id. at 262.

19 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 69–70, 123–24, 128–29.

20 Id. at 74–75; see also id. at 123, 130–31.

21 Id. at 71, 135; see also id. at 125, 128–29, 132.

22 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 225–29.

23 Id. at 228.

24 Id. at 228–29.

contradictory statement she gave after the incident to James Koenig, the assigned investigative

detective, she again revised her testimony to say that, in total, it was “two times at least” or

“more than once . . . .”25 Mrs. Wexler denied hitting Officer Hawkins with the bicycle.26

At first, Officer Hawkins denied outright that she ever put her hand around Mrs. Wexler’s

neck.27 She later clarified that she “did not put her hands around [Mrs. Wexler’s] neck,” but she

did “put one hand around [Mrs. Wexler’s] neck area.”28 Notwithstanding this admission,

Officer Hawkins continued to maintain that she “never choked her.”29 Mrs. Wexler introduced

two photographs, which were taken the following day when she returned home, showing red

markings on her neck and a crescent-shaped wound.30 Plaintiff’s counsel directed Officer

Hawkins to her preliminary hearing testimony, during which Officer Hawkins previously

admitted under oath that she “grabbed her and my hand was around her neck.”31 Plaintiff’s

counsel also introduced video footage captured by Officer Marisol Ramirez’s body-worn camera

after the incident (the “Ramirez video”), showing Officer Hawkins smiling and laughing while

telling a colleague that she got into “a fight” but would tell her about it later because there were

“too many witnesses.”32

Officer Hawkins removed her hand from Mrs. Wexler’s neck when another officer,

Timothy O’Reilly, arrived on scene.33 Officer O’Reilly was assigned on bike patrol during the

25 Id. at 229–30.

26 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 93.

27 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 238.

28 Id. at 239 (emphasis added).

29 Id.

30 Joint Exs. 23, 24; T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 93–95.

31 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 247–48.

32 Id. at 267–68; Joint Ex. 30 (Ramirez video).

33 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 71–72.

parade.34 He testified that he saw Mrs. Wexler and Officer Hawkins grabbing each other in their

neck areas as he approached.35 Officer O’Reilly took Mrs. Wexler to the area near 6th and

Market Streets and asked for her driver’s license.36 He then began filling out a Code Violation

Notice (“CVN”).37 Mrs. Wexler took two photographs on her phone—one of Officer O’Reilly

standing next to Officer Hawkins, and another of Officer O’Reilly writing on the CVN form.38

Mrs. Wexler never received a copy of the CVN that Officer O’Reilly filled out, including

through discovery in this case.39 Officer O’Reilly instructed Mrs. Wexler to wait on the

sidewalk, during which time Mrs. Wexler expressed to the officers that she was having trouble

breathing, felt like she could not swallow, and wanted to go to the hospital.40

As captured on her post-incident body-worn camera footage, Officer Ramirez, at some

distance away from the scene, asked Officer Hawkins “why she’s not in cuffs,” to which Officer

Hawkins responded, “[be]cause they was gonna do a CVN on her first and just disorder,

disorderly conduct, but then because I got the marks on me, and she talking about she wanna go

to the hospital.”41 After Mrs. Wexler had been waiting for close to an hour, an unidentified

female officer arrived with handcuffs and told Mrs. Wexler that she was being arrested.42

34 O’Reilly Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 175.

35 Id. at 185.

36 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 72.

37 O’Reilly Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 179, 181.

38 Joint Exs. 25, 26; T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 75–76.

39 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 169.

40 Id. at 73.

41 Joint Ex. 30 at 1:22:17; see also Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 254–56.

42 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 79–80; see also Joint Ex. 5 (arrest report).

Mrs. Wexler was placed in a police wagon and transported to the Police Detention Unit at 750

Race Street, where her intake was processed and she was detained.43

At about 3:10 p.m. on the day of the arrest, Detective James Koenig of the Philadelphia

Police Department’s Central Detective Division, the detective assigned to the incident,

interviewed Officer Hawkins.44 Officer Hawkins brought with her two incident reports and a

Biographical Information Report containing Mrs. Wexler’s information (Form 75-229 or a

“229”).45 Officer Hawkins suggested in the two incident reports that Mrs. Wexler was the first to

escalate the confrontation, specifically by grabbing Officer Hawkins by the shirt collar and

forearm (as she wrote in one report) or by grabbing her face (as she wrote in another report),

before Officer Hawkins attempted to make the initial arrest using a “control hold.”46 This

account was contradicted by Mrs. Wexler’s testimony that she may have reacted involuntarily

after Officer Hawkins began choking her, but she could not recall exactly what happened and did

not knowingly scratch Officer Hawkins in the face, neck, or arms.47

Detective Koenig explained on the stand that his general practice was to begin his

interviews by asking basic questions to develop “an understanding of what happened,” without

recording the discussion or taking notes, and only after that preliminary conversation would he

proceed with preparing his written report.48 He wrote in his Investigation Interview Report that

43 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 80, 83–84; Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 88–89.

44 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 183–84; Joint Ex. 6. Detective Koenig became the assigned detective

because he was on duty at the Central Detective Division at the time Officer Hawkins came in to make her report.

Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 184.

45 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 193–94; Joint Ex. 1 (First Complaint or Incident Report); Joint Ex. 2

(Second Complaint or Incident Report); Joint Ex. 11 (Biographical Information Report).

46 Joint Exs. 1, 2, 6.

47 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 137 (“I’m not sure if maybe involuntarily I moved my hand. I have no

idea what I did in that moment . . . .”). Photographs later taken by Detective James Koenig showed small cuts on

Officer Hawkins’s face and arm, and mild redness near the collar of her uniform. Joint Exs. 7, 8, 9.

48 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 42.

Officer Hawkins recalled Mrs. Wexler being irate, yelling that she did not want to go to the

sidewalk, and hitting Officer Hawkins twice with her bicycle.49 The Report also states that

Mrs. Wexler grabbed Officer Hawkins by the collar and pulled her, after which Officer Hawkins

“attempted to arrest her using control holds . . . .”50 The Report does not reference any contact

with Mrs. Wexler’s neck; it omits her request for Officer Hawkins’s name and badge number;

and it does not address the absence of footage from Officer Hawkins’s body-worn camera.51 The

Report reflects a question from Detective Koenig about whether Officer Hawkins had suffered

any injuries, but no questions about whether Mrs. Wexler had been injured.52 Detective Koenig

did not meet or communicate with Mrs. Wexler as part of his investigation, and he took

photographs of Officer Hawkins but not of Mrs. Wexler, both in contravention of the

Philadelphia Police Department Directives governing assault-on-police investigations.53

Detective Koenig testified that he believed Officer Hawkins’s version of events because

“[s]he’s a sworn officer,” and he felt comfortable leaving her signature line blank at the bottom

of his Report for the same reason.54 Detective Koenig also testified that he was never made

aware of the CVN that Officer O’Reilly prepared at the scene.55 Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in a

vigorous line of questions regarding why a CVN completed by an eyewitness police officer

would have been omitted from the assigned detective’s case file, particularly given Detective

Koenig’s understanding that a CVN and an arrest provide an “either/or” approach in response to

49 Joint Ex. 6.

50 Id.

51 Id.; see also Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 218–19 (“I didn’t know she had it. I didn’t know she wore

one, so I wouldn’t have asked.”).

52 Joint Ex. 6.

53 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 34–38, 67–68, 89.

54 Id. at 66.

55 Id. at 28. According to Detective Koenig, Officer O’Reilly’s name never came up at all. Id. at 30.

an incident.56 Detective Koenig agreed that police supervisors have a duty to gather witness

information, but he testified that he was never contacted by a supervisor about any names.57

Officer Hawkins’s paperwork did not contain any witness information.58 Plaintiff’s counsel

noted in his questioning that the incident happened on the parade route, and the available body-

worn camera footage from the event showed a crowd of civilians lined up to enjoy the parade, as

well as rows of uniformed officers surveilling the route.59

Based solely on the documents and information conveyed to him by Officer Hawkins,

Detective Koenig “believed [he] had enough,” and he decided to submit criminal charges against

Mrs. Wexler to the District Attorney’s Office (“DA”) through the Preliminary Arraignment

Reporting System (“PARS”).60 The charges were required to be approved by Detective Koenig’s

immediate supervisor, who in turn was required to receive approval from a captain or another of

higher rank.61 Five charges were submitted to the DA: one felony offense of aggravated assault

for the purported attack on Officer Hawkins, three misdemeanor offenses of possession of an

instrument of crime (i.e., the bicycle) with intent to employ it criminally, simple assault, and

recklessly endangering another person, and one summary offense of harassment.62

56 Id. at 28–30.

57 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 199–200.

58 Id. at 196.

59 Id. at 197, 199; see also id. at 200 (reflecting question from Plaintiff’s counsel about the fact that “the Pride

parade in 2019 was televised”); see generally Joint Ex. 30.

60 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 196 (“Q. You made the decision to do it right then and to charge her right

then, correct? A. Yes.”); Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 7, 9 (discussing PARS).

61 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 9. During his testimony, Koenig recalled that Sergeant Taylor called

someone for approval, possibly the supervisor on night command, with a badge number of #114. Id. at 10, 83.

62 Joint Ex. 5.

Mrs. Wexler was held at the Police Detention Unit for approximately 16 hours, until she

was released and picked up by her husband around 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. the next day.63 She

appeared in court several times and was required to retain counsel to defend herself against the

criminal charges, some of which were held over after a preliminary hearing.64 All remaining

charges were withdrawn later by the DA.65 After hearing all of this evidence, the jury found that

Officer Hawkins intentionally used excessive force and assaulted and/or battered Mrs. Wexler;

that Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig arrested Mrs. Wexler without probable cause; that

Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig maliciously prosecuted Mrs. Wexler; and that Officer

Hawkins and Detective Koenig retaliated against Mrs. Wexler.66

At trial, Mrs. Wexler did not present monetary figures regarding compensatory damages

caused by Defendants’ conduct. Instead, Mrs. Wexler relied upon her husband’s and her own

testimony, as well as the photographs of her injuries. The jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory

and $500,000 in punitive damages against Officer Hawkins and $2,000 in compensatory and

$500,000 in punitive damages against Detective Koenig, for a total of $6,000 in compensatory

and $1,000,000 in punitive damages.67

63 T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 87–88.

64 Id. at 89–90, 111.

65 Id. at 91, 112. The parties also entered a joint statement, attached to this Opinion, agreeing not to contest that the

proceedings terminated in Mrs. Wexler’s favor. Joint Statement at 1.

66 Verdict Form at 1–4 [Doc. No. 84].

67 The verdict sheet contained the following questions:

As to the federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:

1. Excessive Force . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant

Officer Charmaine Hawkins intentionally committed an act on June 9, 2019 that violated Plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment right not to be subjected to excessive force? . . . .

2. Unlawful Arrest . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant(s) arrested Plaintiff without probable cause on June 9, 2019? . . . .

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), a court may grant a new trial “for any

reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court,”68

“but ‘it should do so only when the great weight of the evidence cuts against the verdict and . . . a

miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand . . . .’”69 “The authority to grant a

new trial resides in the exercise of sound discretion by the trial court . . . .”70

3. Malicious Prosecution . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant(s) initiated criminal proceedings against Plaintiff without probable cause, and with malice or for

a purpose other than bringing her to justice? . . . .

4. Retaliation for Protected Speech . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence

that Defendant Officer Charmaine Hawkins retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected speech?

. . . .

As to the claims under Pennsylvania law:

5. Assault and Battery . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant Officer Charmaine Hawkins committed the intentional tort of assault and/or battery against

Plaintiff? . . . .

6. False Imprisonment / False Arrest . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the

evidence that Defendant(s) committed the intentional tort of false imprisonment and/or false arrest against

Plaintiff? . . . .

7. Malicious Prosecution . . . Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant(s) committed the intentional tort of malicious prosecution against Plaintiff? . . . .

8. Compensatory Damages . . . Please state the amount that will fairly compensate Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler for

any injury or harm that she actually sustained that was proximately caused by Defendant(s). If you do not

find that the conduct of the Defendant(s) proximately caused any injury or harm, then enter an award of

nominal damages for Plaintiff in the amount of $ 1.00. . . .

9. Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant(s) acted maliciously or wantonly in

violating Plaintiff’s rights?

10. Punitive Damages . . . Do you award punitive damages against Defendant(s)? . . . If yes, in what amount?

Verdict Form at 1–5 [Doc. No. 84]. The jury answered “Yes” to all questions requiring a “Yes” or “No” response—

i.e., all questions except for the eighth question—and further responded “Yes” to the sub-components of the first

seven questions regarding whether the respective conduct caused Plaintiff injury or harm. For the eighth and tenth

questions, the jury apportioned the compensatory and punitive damages awards between the two Defendants.

68 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A).

69 City Select Auto Sales Inc. v. David Randall Assocs., Inc., 885 F.3d 154, 163 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Leonard v.

Stemtech Int’l Inc., 834 F.3d 376, 386 (3d Cir. 2016)).

70 Wagner by Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Ctr., 49 F.3d 1002, 1017 (3d Cir. 1995).

Under Rule 50(b), a moving party may prevail on a renewed motion for judgment as a

matter of law by establishing that there was no “legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a

reasonable jury to have found for [the prevailing party] on that issue.”71 A court considering such

a motion “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and

determine whether the record contains the ‘minimum quantum of evidence from which a jury

might reasonably afford relief.’”72 “The court may not weigh evidence, determine the credibility

of witnesses or substitute its version of the facts for that of the jury.”73 “The question is not

whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed

but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party.”74

Under Rule 59(e), a party may seek alteration or amendment of the verdict. The trial

court, in its sound discretion, may issue a remittitur when a damages award is unsupported or

excessive—i.e., when “the jury has [not] come to a rationally based conclusion” based on the

evidence presented.75

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants identify what they contend are numerous prejudicial errors which warrant a

new trial or a partial new trial. In the alternative, Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the

evidence as to all counts except excessive force under § 1983 and assault and battery under state

71 Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1).

72 Parkway Garage, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 5 F.3d 685, 691 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Keith v. Truck Stops Corp.,

909 F.2d 743, 745 (3d Cir. 1990)), abrogation on other grounds recognized by United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc. v.

Township of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392 (3d Cir. 2003).

73 Parkway Garage, 5 F.3d at 691 (quoting Blair v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co., 692 F.2d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 1982)).

74 Walter v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 985 F.2d 1232, 1238 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

75 Spence v. Bd. of Educ. of Christina Sch. Dist., 806 F.2d 1198, 1201 (3d Cir. 1986) (citing Murray v. Fairbanks

Morse, 610 F.2d 149, 152–53 (3d Cir. 1979)).

law against Officer Hawkins. Finally, Defendants contend that the punitive damages award was

unconstitutionally excessive. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

A. The Evidence Was Sufficient to Support the Jury’s Findings Under Rule 50(b)

The Court first addresses the sufficiency of the evidence. Defendants raise numerous

arguments under Rule 50(b), none of which have force. The evidence presented at trial,

summarized in detail above, exceeds the “minimum quantum of evidence” necessary for a

reasonable jury to have reached a verdict of liability on each count.76

As previously discussed, the jury’s assessment of witness credibility was paramount in

this case. Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because

Mrs. Wexler admitted to injuring Officer Hawkins, and therefore probable cause was satisfied.

However, Mrs. Wexler was adamant during her testimony that she did not intentionally scratch

Officer Hawkins’s face or arm and could not recall even inadvertently doing so. Given the

inconsistencies between Officer Hawkins’s account at trial and the documentary evidence (as

well as her prior statements under oath), and her equivocal testimony surrounding the lack of

body-worn camera footage and disappearance of the CVN, a reasonable jury could have chosen

to believe Mrs. Wexler’s account over Officer Hawkins’s version of events.

Defendants suggest that Officer Hawkins’s account was indisputably corroborated by

Officer O’Reilly’s eyewitness testimony, but Officer O’Reilly did not claim to have witnessed

the initial altercation. Rather, he merely stated that he saw both Officer Hawkins and

Mrs. Wexler grabbing each other in their neck areas as he made his approach.77 Officer

76 Parkway Garage, Inc., 5 F.3d at 691 (citation omitted).

77 Officer O’Reilly was wearing a body-worn camera, but like Officer Hawkins, he did not initiate a recording. See

Bowen Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 266–67.

O’Reilly’s testimony was not per se inconsistent with Mrs. Wexler’s narrative, and it does not

entitle Defendants to judgment as a matter of law over the jury’s factual findings.

Additionally, Defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to establish a causal

link between Mrs. Wexler’s request for Officer Hawkins’s name and badge number (or other

constitutionally protected conduct) and the alleged retaliatory actions. Mrs. Wexler testified that

she orally requested Officer Hawkins’s name and badge number because of what she perceived

to be wrongful police conduct—specifically, Officer Hawkins shoving the bicycle into

Mrs. Wexler at the beginning of the confrontation. Mrs. Wexler stated her opinion that Officer

Hawkins may have choked her because the oral request was a trigger, but she admitted that she

did not know what Officer Hawkins was thinking.

Even if Mrs. Wexler’s testimony were not sufficient on its own, a reasonable jury could

have inferred causation from the other circumstantial evidence presented at trial. The jury could

have reasonably disbelieved that Mrs. Wexler hit Officer Hawkins with the bicycle, given the

lack of evidence of any injuries to Officer Hawkins’s hip area where the bicycle purportedly hit

her,78 and it could have discredited the inconsistent incident reports Officer Hawkins wrote

suggesting that Mrs. Wexler was the first to make physical contact. Accordingly, a reasonable

jury could have concluded that Officer Hawkins escalated the physical confrontation for a

different reason: because she was angered by Mrs. Wexler’s oral complaint and request for her

badge ID number. The jury also could have relied upon the Ramirez video, in which Officer

Hawkins explained that police officials were choosing to make an arrest—rather than pursuing

the CVN already completed by Officer O’Reilly at the scene—due in part to Mrs. Wexler’s

requests to go to a hospital.

78 See Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 226–27.

For similar reasons, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found that

Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig each maliciously initiated the criminal proceedings

against Mrs. Wexler by providing false information or withholding facts. For the reasons

previously discussed, the jury could have reasonably found that Officer Hawkins’s written

incident reports and interview statements contained falsehoods, thereby causing the DA to

pursue criminal charges without an accurate understanding of the facts. A reasonable jury also

could have found malice, in that the charging decision came only after Mrs. Wexler’s request to

go to a hospital due to her injuries (as Officer Hawkins admitted in the Ramirez video).

Likewise, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Detective Koenig

initiated the upgraded felony charges and acted with malice by unreasonably accepting Officer

Hawkins’s version of events, without conducting any meaningful investigation to either

corroborate or refute her account, notwithstanding his duty to do so as the assigned investigative

detective. In particular, evidence was presented that the duties imposed upon Detective Koenig

by the Philadelphia Police Department Directives covering assault-on-police investigations

included, at a minimum, an obligation to interview Mrs. Wexler, document and photograph her

injuries, confirm the availability of eyewitnesses, and verify the existence or nonexistence of

body-worn camera footage—i.e., the steps required to conduct a thorough investigation.79 A

reasonable jury could have found that Detective Koenig chose intentionally not to take those

basic (and mandatory) investigative steps.

Finally, Defendants contend that the evidence at trial was insufficient to establish the

personal involvement of Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig in Mrs. Wexler’s arrest.

79 See Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024 at 182–83, 194–95, 199 (discussing policies regarding review of any

available body-worn camera footage and identification of eyewitnesses); Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024 at 34–

37 (regarding interviews of all involved police and civilians and photographing injuries of both police and civilians).

Defendants would have this Court hold that any officer who does not physically place handcuffs

onto an individual, or personally drive that individual to the Police Detention Unit, cannot be

found liable for an unlawful arrest under § 1983. That is an untenable interpretation of the law.

In Lozano v. New Jersey, the case on which Defendants rely, the Third Circuit held that mere

presence at the scene or driving an arrestee to the police station, without more, is insufficient to

defeat qualified immunity under § 1983.80 The Lozano decision reveals that the framework of

analysis is not a box-checking exercise, but rather an inquiry into the substantive nature of a

defendant’s involvement in the arrest and detention.81

Indeed, if the Court were to apply the plain reasoning of the Lozano decision, it may well

be that the unknown officers who placed handcuffs on Mrs. Wexler and drove her to the Police

Detention Unit would not face liability under § 1983. That is because the evidence presented at

trial showed that those officers (and eventually, city prosecutors) relied on the probable-cause

representations of Officer Hawkins, who stated in her use of force report that she was the first to

“attempt[ ] to arrest the offender for assault on police,”82 and who was identified by Detective

Koenig at trial as the arresting officer.83 A reasonable jury could readily have found Officer

Hawkins’s level of involvement to be sufficient for liability on the unlawful arrest count.

Evidence was also presented regarding Detective Koenig’s decision to rely blindly on Officer

Hawkins’s narrative, to decline to conduct any further investigation, and to then submit criminal

charges against Mrs. Wexler through the PARS system based solely on Officer Hawkins’s

80 Lozano v. New Jersey, 9 F.4th 239, 246 (3d Cir. 2021).

81 Id. at 242 (describing, by contrast, the actions of the defendant police sergeant who made the initial contact,

investigated what he suspected to be criminal activity, attempted to conduct a sobriety test, and then made the arrest

after the suspect refused to submit to the test).

82 Joint Ex. 3 at 5.

83 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 8.

facially inconsistent account. At a minimum, those decisions led to Mrs. Wexler’s continued

detention while the charges were prepared, submitted, and processed. The evidence was

sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found liability against Detective Koenig.

B. A New Trial Is Not Warranted Under Rule 59(a) for Improper Jury Instructions

In the alternative, Defendants argue that they are entitled to a new trial due to a series of

purported errors in the Court’s jury instructions. “A party is entitled to a jury instruction that

accurately and fairly sets forth the current status of the law.”84 “[S]o long as the jury instructions

provide an accurate and fair statement of the law, the trial judge has discretion as to the style and

wording employed.”85 The Model Civil Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Third

Circuit are neither law nor precedential, and they do not replace the shared obligation of litigants

and trial courts to correctly distill the law.86

1. Defendants Cannot Challenge Language They Proposed and To Which

Plaintiff Stipulated

The Third Circuit has “long held that when a party jointly recommends a jury instruction,

it cannot later complain about that very instruction.”87 Several of the purported errors Defendants

identify cannot be challenged now, because they were delivered by the Court in substantially

identical form to the jointly proposed instructions submitted before trial.88 First, as to the federal

unlawful arrest claim, Defendants contend that the Court erred by failing to charge the jury with

84 Douglas v. Owens, 50 F.3d 1226, 1233 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing McPhee v. Reichel, 461 F.2d 947, 950 (3d Cir.

1972)).

85 Gilmore v. Macys Retail Holdings, Inc., 385 F. App’x 233, 239 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Douglas, 50 F.3d at 1233).

86 Robinson v. First State Cmty. Action Agency, 920 F.3d 182, 190 (3d Cir. 2019).

87 Id. at 189 (citing United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 97 n.6 (3d Cir. 2008)).

88 On August 14, 2023, Defendants filed their initial proposed jury instructions. Proposed Jury Instrs. [Doc. No. 49].

The parties’ joint statement, emailed to the Court on December 21, 2023, stated that the parties stipulated to the

language of the initial proposed instructions. Joint Statement at 2. On December 29, 2023, Defendants sent an

amended version of the proposed instructions to the Court via email, which was revised only to reflect Plaintiff’s

voluntarily withdrawal of a defendant and claim. See Stipulation and Order, Dec. 28, 2023 [Doc. No. 69].

deciding whether Officer Hawkins or Detective Koenig arrested or detained Mrs. Wexler. The

Court instructed the jury as follows:

An arrest is a seizure. And the Fourth Amendment prohibits Police officers from

arresting a person, unless there is probable cause to do so. In this case,

Mrs. Wexler claims that Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig each arrested her.

You must decide whether Mrs. Wexler has proved, by a preponderance of the

evidence, that the defendants lacked probable cause to arrest her.89

This instruction was substantively identical to the language proposed by Defendants and to

which Mrs. Wexler stipulated.90

Second, as to the federal retaliation claim, Defendants argue that it was improper for the

Court to instruct the jury that asking for a police officer’s name and badge number is

constitutionally protected speech. The Court instructed the jury as follows:

Mrs. Wexler must prove that she engaged in speech or other conduct that is

constitutionally protected. The First Amendment protects every citizen’s right to

freedom of speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. . . .

That includes speech criticizing or challenging police officers as well as asking

for a police officer’s badge number. . . . I instruct you that if you find that

Mrs. Wexler has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she asked for

Officer Hawkins[’] badge number or made other statements to Officer Hawkins

that did not constitute a threat of violence, then that speech of hers was protected

under the First Amendment. And therefore the first element requires no additional

proof.91

Defendants’ proposed jury instructions provided:

I instruct you that if you find that Ms. Wexler has proven by a preponderance of

the evidence that she asked for Officer Hawkins’ badge number, then that speech

was protected under the First Amendment and, therefore, the first element

requires no additional proof.92

89 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 105–06.

90 See Proposed Jury Instrs. at 31 [Doc. No. 49].

91 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 114–15.

92 Proposed Jury Instrs. at 38 [Doc. No. 49].

Given the substantial similarity between the proposed instructions and the delivered charge,

Defendants cannot claim now that the Court “usurped the jury’s role” by instructing that a

request for a badge number, if proven, constitutes protected speech.93

2. Initiation and Malice Elements of Malicious Prosecution Claim

As to the federal malicious prosecution claim, Defendants contend that the Court

erroneously instructed the jury by failing to distinguish between malice and the initiation of

criminal proceedings as separate elements, and by adding incorrect language in its instructions

regarding initiation. With respect to the initiation element, the Court instructed the jury that

because criminal charges are formally filed by the District Attorney’s Office, Mrs. Wexler was

required to “prove that one or both of these Officers knowingly withheld facts from or provided

false information to the Prosecutor[ ] [o]r caused the criminal proceedings to be formally

initiated by other corrupt means.”94 The Court further clarified that establishment of the initiation

element required finding “that Officer Hawkins and Det. Koenig interfered with the Prosecutor’s

informed discretion by hiding or mischaracterizing the truth[,] [t]hereby causing the District

Attorney’s Office to charge Mrs. Wexler . . . .”95 As to the malice element, the Court instructed

that Mrs. Wexler was required to “prove that in initiating the proceeding Officer Hawkins and

Det. Koenig acted out of spite[,] . . . did not themselves believe that the proceeding was proper[,]

. . . [or] initiated the proceeding for a purpose unrelated to bringing Mrs. Wexler to justice.”96

93 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 11 [Doc. No. 104]. The instruction was also correct. See Montgomery

v. Killingsworth, Nos. 13-256, 13-3081, 13-3082, 2015 WL 289934, at *8 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2015) (holding that, as

alleged, a request for an officer’s name and badge number was protected activity for purposes of denying

defendants’ motion for summary judgment); accord Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 602 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The

defendants do not deny that criticizing a police officer and asking for his badge number is protected speech under

the First Amendment. Nor could they.”).

94 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 109–10.

95 Id. at 110.

96 Id. at 112.

Defendants’ argument that the delivered charge conflated the initiation and malice

elements is unavailing, given that the structure of the Court’s instructions was entirely consistent

with Defendants’ proposal.97 The delivered language concerning the fourth element—malice

being established by proving spite, a lack of belief that the proceeding was proper, or initiation

for a purpose unrelated to bringing Mrs. Wexler to justice—also tracked the language of

Defendants’ proposed submission.98

To the extent that Defendants suggest they are entitled to a new trial on the malicious

prosecution claim solely because of the Court’s addition of “by other corrupt means” in relation

to the initiation element, that argument is without merit. Defendants protest that the Court

“mischaracterize[d] the legal standard,” because the model instructions only recommend the

insertion of such language in cases where a plaintiff was previously indicted by a grand jury.99

Defendants’ argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable legal standard.

In Halsey v. Pfeiffer, the Third Circuit held that it is “self-evident that a police officer’s

fabrication and forwarding to prosecutors of known false evidence works an unacceptable

corruption of the truth-seeking function of the trial process.”100 The Halsey court applied “settled

law that ‘officers who conceal and misrepresent material facts to the district attorney are not

insulated from a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution simply because the prosecutor . . . act[s]

97 Proposed Jury Instrs. at 33–35 [Doc. No. 49]. The Court struggles to make sense of Defendants’ argument. The

initiation and malice elements were unambiguously delineated in the delivered charge. Although Defendants

favorably cite the Third Circuit’s Model Jury Instructions, the delivered charge was structured in the same manner

as Defendants’ proposal, which in turn was based on Section 4.13 of the Third Circuit’s model. The Court’s few

revisions were made only as necessary to tailor the charge to the facts of this case—e.g., the Court could not use the

model language concerning initiation, because that element is presumed to be undisputed in the model.

98 Proposed Jury Instrs. at 34–35 [Doc. No. 49].

99 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 9 [Doc. No. 104].

100 Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273, 293 (3d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

independently to facilitate erroneous convictions,’”101 and it held that “[i]f the officers

influenced or participated in the decision to institute criminal proceedings, they can be liable for

malicious prosecution.”102 As previously stated, “the trial judge has discretion as to the style and

wording employed” in the jury instructions “so long as [they] provide an accurate and fair

statement of the law . . . .”103 The reference to “other corrupt means” in the instructions was not

in error, did not prejudice Defendants in any manner, and provides no basis for a new trial under

Rule 59(a).

3. Standard for Probable Cause and Omission of Summary Offense

Defendants raise several challenges to the Court’s instructions on probable cause as to

Mrs. Wexler’s malicious prosecution and retaliation claims. First, Defendants contend that the

Court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a finding of probable cause as to “any one of” the

criminal charges against Mrs. Wexler defeats a claim of malicious prosecution. Second, as to

retaliation, Defendants assert that the Court failed to differentiate between arrest and prosecution

as the alleged retaliatory actions—i.e., that the probable cause standard for both kinds of

retaliation should have been included in the charge. Third, as to both retaliation and malicious

prosecution, Defendants argue that the Court erroneously omitted the summary offense of

harassment when providing the list of criminal offenses for the jury to consider.

In Wright v. City of Philadelphia104 and Johnson v. Knorr,105 the Third Circuit endorsed

two probable cause standards for malicious prosecution claims which it later observed “are

101 Id. at 297 (quoting Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1292 (10th Cir. 2004)).

102 Halsey, 750 F.3d at 297 (citing Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294, 308–09, 317 (6th Cir. 2010)).

103 Gilmore, 385 F. App’x at 239 (citing Douglas, 50 F.3d at 1233).

104 409 F.3d 595 (3d Cir. 2005).

105 477 F.3d 75 (3d Cir. 2007).

difficult to reconcile.”106 In Wright, the Third Circuit held that a malicious prosecution claim was

defeated by the existence of probable cause for at least one of the charges.107 In Johnson,

however, the Third Circuit adopted the rule “that probable cause on one charge does not

foreclose a malicious prosecution cause of action against a defendant for having brought criminal

charges involving different elements,”108 although the Johnson court disclaimed any intent to

“diminish the precedential status of [Wright] . . . .”109 The Third Circuit has not resolved the

tension between these two standards, but it has continued to apply the Johnson rule where

appropriate.110 Specifically, if the favorable termination element of a malicious prosecution

claim is satisfied, guidance from the Third Circuit indicates that district courts must then

“wrestle with the approaches set forth in Johnson and Wright to determine which provides the

more appropriate framework to apply to a given set of facts.”111

On June 20, 2024, after briefing in this case was completed, the Supreme Court decided

Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, holding that the existence of probable cause for one charge in a

criminal proceeding does not create a categorical bar to bringing a malicious prosecution claim

relating to other, baseless charges.112 The Supreme Court’s ruling, at a minimum, calls into

question the viability of Wright. The Supreme Court’s explicit endorsement of Johnson (and

106 Kossler v. Crisanti, 564 F.3d 181, 194 (3d Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Thompson v. Clark, 596

U.S. 36 (2022).

107 Wright, 409 F.3d at 604.

108 Johnson, 477 F.3d at 83 (citing Posr v. Doherty, 944 F.2d 91, 100 (2d Cir. 1991)).

109 Johnson, 477 F.3d at 82 n.9.

110 See, e.g., Harvard v. Cesnalis, 973 F.3d 190 (3d Cir. 2020); Dempsey v. Bucknell Univ., 834 F.3d 457 (3d Cir.

2016); see also Alburg v. Jones, No. 21-2580, 2023 WL 2823895, at *3 (3d Cir. Apr. 7, 2023).

111 Kossler, 564 F.3d at 194.

112 Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, No. 23-50, 602 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1 (June 20, 2024).

other circuit decisions applying the same standard)113 provides a clear indication that the final

charge delivered in this case was, and is, a correct application of the prevailing law.114

The Court determined in this case, after taking defense counsel’s objections and

arguments under advisement, that the Johnson standard provided the most appropriate

framework.115 Here, as in Johnson, Mrs. Wexler alleged that Officer Hawkins and Detective

Koenig provided false and incomplete information to the DA, which caused the criminal charges

to be filed.116 Moreover, Defendants’ role in initiating those charges, as alleged, was not merely

the preparation of an affidavit of probable cause for arrest—i.e., “the circumstances leading to

the arrest and prosecution” were not “totally intertwined.”117 Therefore, Plaintiff’s theory of

liability was most consistent with the facts of Johnson, in that Defendants’ involvement was

113 Id. at 4 (citing Johnson, 477 F.3d at 83–85; Posr, 944 F.2d at 100; Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147, 1159–62

(11th Cir. 2020)).

114 Chiaverini, slip op. at 5 (“Consistent with both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice,

courts should evaluate suits like Chiaverini’s charge by charge.”). Relatedly, the Supreme Court issued another

decision on the same date as Chiaverini, in the context of retaliation claims under the First Amendment, which

further reinforces the principle that the presence of probable cause on a minor offense may not preclude civil rights

claims under § 1983. See Gonzalez v. Trevino, No. 22-1025, 602 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2024).

115 On the morning of the final day of trial proceedings, the Court had the following colloquy with defense counsel:

MR. KANE: The City’s position is, defendant’s position that is, Your Honor, is this issue was

actually raised on our Friday call. I brought up the fact that there is a tension between two cases.

The cases are Wright and Johnson. . . . [U]ltimately what Kossler said is that it’s a fact intensive

inquiry as to whether or not Johnson or Wright should be applied.

We don’t believe the facts of Johnson apply in this case because defendant Hawkins brought all

these charges at once and Johnson is distinguishable where they’re sort of tacked on at the end.

That is why we originally requested this being charges as they are now and that’s why we’re still

requesting those, Your Honor.

THE COURT: You think all the charges came at once in this case? See, that’s another fact at issue

that the jury has to determine. How did this charging progression occur. So, I don’t think we can

say that on the date of the offense she was charged with all of these offenses. We don’t know. But

the jury can figure it out from what they’ve heard.

Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 4–5.

116 See Johnson, 477 F.3d at 84.

117 Wright, 409 F.3d at 598; Johnson, 477 F.3d at 82 n.9.

alleged to be more extensive and to have “lasted beyond . . . the arrest itself.”118 Presented with

similar facts, other district courts in this Circuit have regularly applied the Johnson rule, guided

by the Johnson court’s “concern that drawing a rule of general applicability from Wright would

permit officers to ‘tack on more serious, unfounded charges . . . knowing that the probable cause

on the lesser offense would insulate [them] from liability . . . .’”119

Defendants make the unsupported contention that the Court, by adopting the Johnson rule

over Defendants’ objection, “failed to instruct the jury on the proper legal standard[.]”120 That

argument is misplaced, as Johnson remains good precedent in this Circuit121—and indeed, is

consistent with the prevailing rule now established by the Supreme Court.122 In any event, even

if the Court erred by applying the Johnson standard (which it did not), any error was harmless.

The Court properly instructed the jury in accordance with the probable cause standard for

unlawful arrest claims, which tracks the Wright framework.123 The delivered charge on unlawful

arrest also included the summary offense of harassment among the list of offenses the jury was

instructed to consider.124 Therefore, because the jury found Defendants liable for unlawful arrest,

it necessarily determined that Mrs. Wexler proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

118 Johnson, 477 F.3d at 84.

119 Rivera-Guadalupe v. Pierce, No. 19-1400, 2023 WL 2647859, at *9 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 27, 2023) (quoting Johnson,

477 F.3d at 83); see also, e.g., Chamberlain v. City of Philadelphia, No. 20-6572, 2023 WL 2868010, at *11

(E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2023); Morency v. City of Allentown, No. 19-5304, 2020 WL 1935640, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22,

2020); Kelly v. Jones, 148 F. Supp. 3d 395, 407 (E.D. Pa. 2015).

120 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 10 [Doc. No. 104].

121 See Alburg, 2023 WL 2823895 at *3.

122 Chiaverini, slip op. at 1, 4–5.

123 See Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 106 (“There is no false arrest, unless probable cause was lacking to arrest

Mrs. Wexler for any one of the offense[s] with which she was charged.”) (emphasis added).

124 Id. at 106–07.

probable cause was lacking as to any one of the five offenses, including harassment.125 Had the

Court adopted the Wright rule with respect to its instructions on malicious prosecution and

retaliation, it would have made no difference in the jury’s finding of liability on those counts.

Defendants further argue that the Court “failed to properly state the standard for probable

cause” as to the Pennsylvania state law claims of false arrest and malicious prosecution.126 For

the state law false arrest claim, the Court gave the following instruction:

A false arrest is an arrest made without probable cause or an arrest made by a

person without privilege to do so. Probable cause means that the person making

the arrest believed at the time of the arrest and a reasonable person under the same

circumstances would also have believed that they have sufficient information of

both the facts and the applicable law to reasonably believe that a crime had been

or was being committed and that the person arrested was guilty of committing the

crime.127

This instruction was identical to Defendants’ proposed language, which in turn was drawn from

the Pennsylvania Model Jury Instructions.128 The argument cannot be raised now.129

The Court gave separate instructions on probable cause for the state law malicious

prosecution claim, as follows:

As to the first element of Mrs. Wexler’s malicious prosecution claim under

Pennsylvania law, if you find that Officer Hawkins and Det. Koenig did not have

a basis for believing that Mrs. Wexler committed [the crimes]130 with which she

was charged[,] which I explained to you earlier, then Mrs. Wexler has established

that Officer Hawkins and Det. Koenig acted without probable cause.

125 Verdict Form at 1 [Doc. No. 84] (responding “Yes” to the question, “Has Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler proven by a

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant(s) arrested Plaintiff without probable cause on June 9, 2019?”).

126 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 12 [Doc. No. 104].

127 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 120.

128 Proposed Jury Instrs. at 42 [Doc. No. 49].

129 The instruction was also in Defendants’ favor, by stating (correctly) that an officer need only believe that

“a crime” had been committed to support a lawful arrest.

130 The bracketed language is omitted in the trial transcript, but it was included in the hard-copy versions of the final

charge provided to all counsel and the jury. See Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief, Ex. D, at 33

[Doc. No. 104-4].

If you find that Officer Hawkins and Det. Koenig had probable cause to initiate a

prosecution for all of the crimes for which she was charged, then you must find in

favor of the defendants on the Pennsylvania malicious prosecution claim.

For malicious prosecution[,] probable cause on one charge does not foreclose a

malicious prosecution cause of action as to a separate charge which lacks

probable cause.131

Defendants cite York v. Kahan,132 a recent decision from the Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Court which endorsed the Wright rule. The York decision did not, however, hold

that the Wright standard should apply in all circumstances. Rather, the court affirmed the trial

court’s instructions because it was “not persuaded that the facts of York’s arrest or prosecution

are aligned with those in Johnson”—specifically observing that “York failed to present facts that

would distinguish it from the prevailing standard in Wright,” with “no allegations that the

Officers fabricated information or involved themselves beyond York’s arrest to influence the

prosecution.”133 Here, unlike in York, Mrs. Wexler presented ample evidence that Officer

Hawkins and Detective Koenig involved themselves in the case beyond the arrest, and further

that each Defendant influenced the prosecution by submitting false information or withholding

facts. The Court’s application of the Johnson rule was therefore appropriate.

4. Willful Misconduct

Defendants contend that the Court’s omission of a separate question concerning willful

misconduct in the jury verdict sheet was prejudicial error. The Court delivered detailed

instructions regarding willful misconduct for the jury’s consideration, and it did so at the outset,

131 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 121–22. The instruction also contained the following language, which was identical to

Defendant’s proposed language: “If you find that Mrs. Wexler never struck, hit or scratched Officer Hawkins with

her hands or her bicycle, then Mrs. Wexler has established that the Officers acted without probable cause.” Id. at

122; Proposed Jury Instrs. at 44 [Doc. No. 49].

132 298 A.3d 533 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).

133 Id. at 547.

before delivering the charges as to any one of the intentional tort claims under state law.134

Defendants cite no case law supporting the proposition that the exclusion of a “Yes” or “No”

inquiry on the jury verdict sheet with respect to willful misconduct, standing alone, warrants a

new trial under Rule 59(a).135 The Court will not award a new trial on this ground.

Defendants further assert that it was error to exclude language concerning willful

misconduct in the punitive damages charge. The scienter section of the Court’s delivered charge

on punitive damages required a finding that Defendants acted maliciously or wantonly, which

tracked Defendants’ proposed language and the Third Circuit’s Model Instructions.136

Defendants again failed to object during trial, or before the jury deliberated, and they cannot

raise the argument now.

5. Police Officers’ Privilege to Use Force

Defendants argue that the Court’s instructions “failed to properly state the Pennsylvania

Law police officer privilege to use force,” thereby “usurp[ing] the jury’s role in determining the

application of the privilege to Plaintiff’s Pennsylvania Law assault and battery claims . . . .”137

As discussed with counsel off the record at the initial charge conference on January 18, 2024,

and as further discussed at length on the record during the second charge conference,138 the

Court declined to adopt Defendants’ proposed instruction out of concern that the language was

134 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 116–17.

135 Defendants cite several cases, but none support the proposition that the Court was required to include a separate

question about willful conduct on the verdict sheet. In the first cited case from the Commonwealth Court, the jury

never reached the question of willful misconduct because it found no liability on the malicious prosecution claim.

York, 298 A.3d at 546–47. The second and third cited cases, Pettit v. Namie, 931 A.2d 790 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007),

and Renk v. City of Pittsburgh, 641 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1994), were presented only with the issue of indemnification.

136 See Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 127–28; Proposed Jury Instrs. at 49–50 [Doc. No. 49].

137 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 11–12 [Doc. No. 104].

138 Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 351–59.

excessive and did not comport with the facts alleged in this case.139 The Court relied upon

language from the Third Circuit’s decision in O’Keefe v. Lehigh University140 in crafting the

following instruction:

Now[,] a police officer is not liable for assault and battery under Pennsylvania law

when she uses reasonable force to prevent interference [with] the exercise of her

authority or the performance of her duty.

Said differently, police officers are privileged to commit a battery pursuant to a

lawful arrest. But the privilege is negated by the use of excessive force. The test[ ]

for determining whether that force is excessive is the same as in [the] Fourth

Amendment context. In other words, whether the police officers’ actions were

objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.141

The Third Circuit’s language was drawn in part from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision

in Renk v. City of Pittsburgh,142 one of the authorities Defendants cite as providing the proper

standard.143 Given the plain language of the delivered charge, the Court is not persuaded that the

instruction “fail[ed] to define the application of the privilege to the Pennsylvania Law intentional

tort of assault and battery,” as Defendants contend.144 The Court identifies no basis for a new

trial in relation to this instruction.

6. Spoliation Instructions

“The admissibility of spoliation evidence and the propriety of the spoliation inference is

well established in most jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania.”145 The doctrine provides that a

139 Defendants’ proposed language stated, inter alia, that “a police officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to

make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest” and “is justified in the use of any

force which she believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and . . . to defend herself . . . .” Proposed Jury Instrs. at

41 [Doc. No. 49].

140 No. 23-1235, 2024 WL 138578 (3d Cir. Jan. 12, 2024).

141 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 122–23; see also Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief, Ex. D, at 35

[Doc. No. 104-4]; O’Keefe, 2024 WL 138578 at *1.

142 641 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1994).

143 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 12 [Doc. No. 104].

144 Id.

145 Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1994).

court may admit “evidence tending to show that a party destroyed evidence relevant to the

dispute being litigated,” which “permit[s] an inference, the ‘spoliation inference,’ that the

destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the position of the offending party.’”146

The Court gave two instructions for purposes of sanctioning Defendants’ counsel because

of irregularities during the discovery process. The first instruction related to the CVN written by

Officer O’Reilly at the scene, which was never produced to Mrs. Wexler.147 The second

instruction concerned the scene supervisor from the Philadelphia Police Department, who was

present during the arrest but whose name was not disclosed to Mrs. Wexler until Officer

Hawkins testified at trial.148 Defendants contend that these instructions were unsupported and

unduly prejudicial. Relatedly, Defendants also argue that the Court erred by precluding

Defendants from affirmatively using the Ramirez video, which was produced to Plaintiff mere

days before trial commenced. The Court disagrees.

“When the contents of a document are relevant to an issue in a case, the trier of fact

generally may receive the fact of the document’s nonproduction or destruction as evidence that

the party that has prevented production did so out of the well-founded fear that the contents

would harm [her].”149 Defendants did not challenge Mrs. Wexler’s testimony that she never

received a copy of the CVN, or the photograph Mrs. Wexler took on her phone of Officer

O’Reilly writing one at the scene (which was introduced as a joint exhibit).150 Officer O’Reilly

confirmed during his testimony that he had written a CVN that day, ripped it off of his pad, and

146 Id. at 78 (citing J. Gorelick, S. Marzen, & L. Solum, Destruction of Evidence § 2.1 (1989)).

147 Trial Tr., Jan. 22, 2024, at 324; Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 123–24.

148 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 124.

149 Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refin. Corp., 72 F.3d 326, 334 (3d Cir. 1995).

150 Joint Ex. 26; see also T. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 169 (“Q. Have you ever to this day seen that

document that Officer [O’]Reilly was filling out that day, when you took the picture of him filling it out? A. No.”).

then gave it to Officer Hawkins.151 Officer Hawkins testified that she could not recall a CVN

ever being handed to her.152 Detective Koenig testified that he was never made aware that one

ever existed, but he agreed that if one was written, it would have been important for him to

receive it.153 In light of this evidence, the Court instructed the jury that it could assume the CVN

“would have been unfavorable to Officer Hawkins only if [it found] by a preponderance of the

evidence that; 1) Officer Hawkins intentionally destroyed the evidence or caused the evidence to

be destroyed and 2) Officer Hawkins [did so] . . . in bad faith.”154 This was not error.155

The second instruction arose directly from counsel’s late-breaking disclosure, mere days

before the beginning of trial, that highly relevant footage had been captured by the body-worn

camera of Officer Ramirez, which had not previously been produced to Mrs. Wexler. Plaintiff’s

counsel represented to the Court that Mrs. Wexler requested footage from the body-worn

cameras of all officers in February 2021, after learning that there were no recordings from

Officer Hawkins’s body-worn camera.156 On the morning of the first day of trial, Defendants’

counsel made a brazen suggestion (with no supporting evidence) that the Ramirez video had in

151 O’Reilly Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 177, 194.

152 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 171–72.

153 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 28–30.

154 Trial Tr., Jan. 23, 2024, at 123–24 (emphasis added); see also Bull v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 665 F.3d 68, 79

(3d Cir. 2012) (“[A] finding of bad faith is pivotal to a spoliation determination.”).

155 Although Defendants cite, without further elaboration, the Third Circuit’s decision in Bull v. United Parcel

Service, Inc., the record reflects that counsel had the opportunity to present evidence and argument that the CVN

was not in Officer Hawkins’s control (e.g., her testimony that she could not recall receiving it), that it was irrelevant,

that it was not actually suppressed or withheld, that her duty to preserve it was not reasonably foreseeable, or that

the document was inadvertently lost or accidentally destroyed. 665 F.3d at 73, 79. After an extensive discussion with

counsel on the penultimate day of trial, the Court concluded, in its discretion, that the matter should be presented to

the jury. Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 300–07. The Court properly instructed the jury that Mrs. Wexler was required to

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the CVN was intentionally destroyed in bad faith in order for the

jury to assume that the CVN would have been unfavorable to Officer Hawkins.

156 Trial Tr. Jan. 16, 2024, at 4–5, 8.

fact been previously produced.157 Counsel then revised his position to state that he merely did

not know whether the video had been produced,158 and eventually gave the explanation that that

the footage “was not tagged correctly . . . .”159

That morning, Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that Mrs. Wexler was willing

to proceed with the trial—without an opportunity to depose Officer Ramirez or to conduct

another deposition of Officer Hawkins about the content of the recording—but orally requested

that Defendants be precluded from affirmatively using the Ramirez video in their defense.160 The

Court had not seen the recording, so it explained to counsel that it could not grant the request

“until we’re all on the same page as to what it says.”161 However, the Court gave a clear

indication to counsel about its view: “[Y]ou can’t possibly expect me to allow you . . . to use this

as if it’s some kind of exculpatory information.”162 The Court gave unambiguous notice to all

parties that sanctions would need to be considered.163 On the third day of trial, in addressing

Plaintiff’s oral motion to preclude Defendants’ use of the footage, Defendants’ counsel

continued to raise unsubstantiated arguments that the Ramirez video had previously been

157 Id. at 8 (“MR. SANTIAGO-PAGAN: . . . [T]here was a supplemental discovery request made through plaintiff’s

counsel . . . and in response to that request those body-worn camera videos were provided. MR. MALONE: Not the

one in question. THE COURT: Not the one you just provided last week.”).

158 Id. at 9–10 (“THE COURT: You can’t prove that it was turned over, you can’t prove that it wasn’t—

MR. SANTIAGO-PAGAN: No, I can’t— THE COURT: . . . [T]his is devastating information and [ ] it just turned

up last week.”).

159 Id. at 9; see also id. at 15–16 (“MR. SANTIAGO-PAGAN: [T]here was one video on [the list] that wasn’t

familiar to me. . . . THE COURT: Strangely enough, it’s one with a direct conversation between Hawkins and this

other police officer— MR. SANTIAGO-PAGAN: Yes— THE COURT: —strangely enough that it was left off.”).

160 Id. at 6.

161 Id.

162 Id. at 14.

163 Id. at 18.

produced.164 That afternoon, it became increasingly evident to the Court that there was no

documentary or testimonial evidence supporting counsel’s contentions.165

Plaintiff’s counsel called Officer Hawkins as of cross during Plaintiff’s case and played

part of the Ramirez video for the jury during that examination. On the fourth day of trial, during

the direct examination of Officer Hawkins, Defendants’ counsel requested to play a slightly

longer clip of the Ramirez video.166 Defendants’ counsel stated explicitly that the purpose of

introducing the additional few seconds was to rehabilitate Officer Hawkins, because “the portion

that [Plaintiff’s counsel] showed was an incomplete portion . . . .”167 Plaintiff’s counsel did not

object to Defendants’ affirmative use of the slightly extended clip, and the Court permitted the

video to be played.168 Defendants’ counsel published that section of the video to the jury, again

without objection from Plaintiff’s counsel, and then asked Officer Hawkins a series of questions

about statements she made in the recording.169

On examination from Plaintiff’s counsel, Officer Hawkins reviewed a segment of the

Ramirez video, during which she could be heard telling another officer that a police lieutenant

(whose name was difficult to discern) was present at the scene.170 On the stand, and for the first

time, Officer Hawkins identified that individual as Lieutenant Long, who she described as a

white male who previously worked in the 25th District.171 After the jury was released for the

164 Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 3–5.

165 Id. at 143.

166 Trial Tr., Jan. 22, 2024, at 70–72.

167 Id. at 70.

168 Id. at 71–72.

169 Id. at 73–78.

170 Joint Ex. 30 at 1:22:09; Trial Tr., Jan. 22, 2024, at 137–39.

171 Trial Tr., Jan. 22, 2024, at 138–39.

day, the Court held an extensive discussion with counsel about why Lieutenant Long’s name and

his presence at the scene had not been disclosed to Mrs. Wexler at any earlier point,

notwithstanding her targeted discovery requests seeking the identities of relevant

eyewitnesses.172 In response, Defendants’ counsel provided several unpersuasive justifications.

Defendants’ counsel asserted that they did not have control over Lieutenant Long as a witness

because they themselves had not identified him (despite their client’s identification of Lieutenant

Long earlier that day).173 They further argued that they had produced to Mrs. Wexler a list of all

officers who were assigned to the parade, but that list failed to clarify which officers were at the

scene or interacted with Mrs. Hawkins, and in any event, the list did not include Lieutenant

Long.174

The Court noted on the record, outside the presence of the jury, that Defendants had been

permitted to ask questions about the Ramirez video (notwithstanding Plaintiff’s previous oral

motion), and the Court had hoped that sanctions would not be necessary, but the extraordinarily

late disclosure of Lieutenant Long as a relevant witness required further action from the Court.175

The Court held that the late disclosure of the witness was attributable to defense counsel’s failure

to investigate the eyewitnesses who were at the scene.176 Given the prejudice to Mrs. Wexler

from the late disclosure—including her inability to depose Lieutenant Long before trial or to call

him as a witness at trial—the Court held that an adverse inference instruction was warranted.177

172 Id. at 310–24.

173 Id. at 313–20.

174 Id. at 316–20.

175 Id. at 324.

176 Id. at 314–15, 321.

177 Id. at 321–24.

Defendants provide no basis to hold that a new trial is necessary because of the instruction or the

manner in which the Court addressed Plaintiff’s oral motion.

C. A New Trial Is Not Warranted Under Rule 59(a) on Grounds of Procedure,

Prejudice, or Bias

1. The Court Did Not Violate Rule 51(b)

Rule 51(b)(1) requires a court to “inform the parties of its proposed instructions and

proposed action on the requests before instructing the jury and before final jury arguments,” and

subsection (b)(2) provides that a court “must give the parties an opportunity to object on the

record and out of the jury’s hearing before the instructions and arguments are delivered . . . .”178

“The Third Circuit has provided little instruction on the standards governing Rule 51(b)(2).”179

Rule 51(c) provides that “[a]n objection is timely if . . . a party objects at the opportunity

provided under Rule 51(b)(2); or . . . a party was not informed of an instruction or action on a

request before that opportunity to object, and the party objects promptly after learning that the

instruction or request will be, or has been, given or refused.”180

Defendants argue that a new trial is warranted because of the Court’s purported violations

of Rule 51.181 They assert that they were not made aware of the Court’s “unilateral alterations”

to the final jury instructions until they were delivered to the jury, and that Defendants “were

prejudiced by being unable to object to the instructions on the record and out of the jury’s

hearing.”182 It is baseless to suggest that this Court failed to provide Defendants reasonable

opportunity to object to the proposed instructions. The Court provided an electronic copy of the

178 Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(b)(1)–(2).

179 Guynup v. Lancaster County, No. 06-4315, 2009 WL 541533, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2009).

180 Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(2).

181 Defs.’ Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 4–5 [Doc. No. 102]; Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 6–8

[Doc. No. 104].

182 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 7 [Doc. No. 104].

draft instructions to counsel in advance of the first charge conference, which was held

telephonically on January 19, 2024.183 It held a second charge conference late into the evening

after the close of trial proceedings on January 22, 2024.184 Based on those lengthy discussions,

the Court incorporated some of counsel’s revisions before providing another electronic draft on

the morning of January 23, 2024, the last day of trial. That morning, the Court held a third

colloquy with counsel, outside the presence of the jury, to address certain outstanding issues,

including another lengthy discussion about the appropriate probable cause standard and the

inclusion or exclusion of the harassment charge for some counts.185 The Court provided counsel

with copies of a relevant opinion, Alburg v. Jones, in which the Third Circuit held that a district

court erred by failing to consider Johnson and its progeny.186 The Court conveyed, on several

occasions, its view that the facts of this case aligned more with the Johnson framework.187 The

Court also gave notice to counsel that the harassment charge would be added to the list of

relevant offenses for the false arrest count, but not the other counts.188

During the afternoon lunch break, the Court provided hard copies of the final charge to

counsel and held yet another discussion about additional changes before the jury was brought in

and before the charge was delivered.189 At that time, counsel proposed last-minute revisions to

183 Due to inclement weather, there were no trial proceedings held on January 19, 2024.

184 Trial Tr. Jan. 22, 2024, at 290–386.

185 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 3–22. Defendants claim to have relied on the draft language sent on the morning of

January 23, 2024. The Court gives little weight to Defendants’ mistaken reliance. Given the morning dialogue, all

parties understood that revisions to the charge were ongoing, and that the circulated draft was clearly not final.

186 Alburg, 2023 WL 2823895 at *3 (citing Harvard, 973 F.3d at 199 n.3).

187 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 5 (“You think all the charges came at once in this case?”); id. at 10 (noting that “the

initiation of criminal proceedings isn’t necessarily instantaneous in this case” and it “would be unfair to say it’s only

about what happened at the scene”).

188 Id. at 19–20.

189 Id. at 86–89.

the verdict sheet and language concerning punitive damages, but did not otherwise object to the

Court’s final language in the hard-copy versions.190 The trial transcript so reflects the following

dialogue with counsel after the charge was delivered and before the jury began its deliberations:

THE COURT: Thank you. Before the jury leaves, does counsel need to see me at

sidebar?

MR. MALONE: No, Your Honor.

MR. KANE: Your Honor I think it can wait until the jury leaves.

THE COURT: I’m not going to bring them [back] out, so.

MR. KANE: Of course.

THE COURT: Okay. That’s fine, thank you. And you may retire to deliberate.191

In other words, the Court provided a final opportunity for counsel to object before the jury began

its deliberations, and Defendants’ counsel did not do so.

Defendants rely on only one case for the proposition that a new trial should be awarded

based on a violation of Rule 51(b). However, in that case, Marcavage v. City of Philadelphia,192

the Third Circuit vacated the judgment in the lower court because of substantive errors in the

delivered charge, not procedural errors. Indeed, as the Marcavage court explained in a footnote,

the parties specifically did not object to the trial court’s procedure on appeal.193 In any event,

even assuming the Court failed to give adequate notice to counsel of these instructions before

closing arguments,194 Defendants did not suffer prejudice from the delivered charge. As the

Court noted on the record immediately after the jury was sent to deliberate,195 Defendants’

190 Id.

191 Id. at 139.

192 271 F. App’x 272 (3d Cir. 2008).

193 Id. at 273 n.1 (“[N]either party objects to this procedure on appeal . . . .”).

194 Although Defendants contend that they “only became aware of the Court’s unilateral alterations as the jury was

instructed,” Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 7 [Doc. No. 104], they cannot plausibly suggest a lack of

notice before the charge was delivered, given the final hard-copy version they received that afternoon which is

attached to Defendants’ brief. See Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief, Ex. D [Doc. No. 104-4].

195 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 141–42 (“I don’t think your close was hampered at all by what this says.”).

closing arguments were not adversely affected by the as-delivered language. Counsel argued to

the jury that it would “hear harassment as part of” the probable cause instructions, but “[i]t’s not

always going to be mentioned.”196 Counsel further represented not only that “[t]he need for

probable cause exists at all levels,” but also that “there is probable cause at all levels here.”197

Of the few statements made by Defendants’ counsel that might be construed as referring

to the Wright standard—e.g., that the jury was required only “to find that there was probable

cause for one” of the charges, or that probable cause existed “for simple assault, at the very

least”198—each argument remained valid under the delivered charge for the unlawful arrest

count, even if not for the malicious prosecution and retaliation counts.199 At bottom, the jury was

required to determine the facts of what happened during Mrs. Wexler’s altercation with

Officer Hawkins and the hours that followed. The transcript of Defendants’ closing arguments

makes clear that the delivered charge did not hinder Defendants from vigorously attacking

Mrs. Wexler’s ability to prove those disputed facts.200 The Court will not grant Defendants a new

trial on this basis.

2. The Proceedings Were Not Affected by Judicial Bias or Plaintiff’s Counsel’s

Inadvertent References to Non-Party the City of Philadelphia

Defendants accuse the Court of being biased against them during the trial. Although

Defendants highlight several examples of the Court’s purported “injection” of its viewpoints

196 Id. at 58–59.

197 Id. at 59 (emphasis added).

198 Id. at 58, 60.

199 The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed in Gonzalez v. Trevino that “[t]he existence of probable cause does not

defeat a [retaliatory arrest] claim if [a plaintiff] produces ‘objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise

similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.’” Gonzalez, slip op. at

1 (quoting Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 407 (2019)). The Gonzalez decision, as previously discussed, was issued

on the same date as the Chiaverini, which endorsed the Johnson probable-cause standard in the context of malicious

prosecution claims.

200 See id. at 49–77.

during the proceedings, none support Defendants’ baseless accusations.201 First, Defendants refer

to the Court’s statement that “[i]n this particular trial, the only person calling Charmaine

Hawkins a victim is Charmaine Hawkins.”202 The context of that statement shows that the Court

was responding to a problem of Defendants’ counsel’s own creation. During Defendants’

counsel’s examination of Detective Koenig, while addressing the incident reports (Form 75-48)

completed by Officer Hawkins after the altercation, counsel repeatedly referred to Officer

Hawkins as “the victim” in those reports.203 Upon objection from Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court

ruled that Officer Hawkins should be referred to as the “alleged victim.”204 As the Court

explained to counsel shortly thereafter, outside the presence of the jury, the Court’s ruling was

necessary to avoid prejudice to Mrs. Wexler, as it was inappropriate for the incident reports

(which Officer Hawkins wrote) to be construed as a definitive indication that Officer Hawkins

was ever found to be a victim in any formal setting.205

Defendants further argue that the Court erroneously permitted Plaintiff’s counsel to refer

to Defendants at trial as “the Government” or “the City.” Defendants do not cite any case

supporting the proposition that such intermittent references to an employing municipality in an

individual capacity lawsuit warrant a new trial. In any event, the Court appropriately heard and

ruled upon objections throughout the trial to address those references.206 Defendants contend that

201 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 15 [Doc. No. 104].

202 Id. (quoting Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 70).

203 Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 69–70.

204 Id. at 70.

205 Id. at 78–79.

206 See, e.g., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 19–20 (granting Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s counsel’s reference to

“the City” during opening statement). Indeed, in one instance, Defendants’ counsel unnecessarily interjected with

argument about the issue in the presence of the jury, notwithstanding that the distinction between the individual

Defendants and the City was not placed at issue by the testimony in question. See id. at 73–74 (“Mr. KANE: Well,

Your Honor, the City is not a defendant. THE COURT: Yes, I know that. I know that and that’s why I didn’t say

that in front of the jury that you just did.”).

the Court erroneously overruled Defendant’s objection on one occasion—specifically, Plaintiff’s

counsel’s description of Defendants during closing argument as “officers of their state power,” as

well as his statements that “[t]hey’re the government” and “all government power derives only

from the consent of the governed.”207 The Court, in its discretion, did not find an appropriate

basis to preclude such arguments, given the requirement under § 1983 that government

employees may be liable only if they act under color of state law.208 The Court identifies no error

and will not grant a new trial on this ground.

3. Defendants Failed to Present Evidence Regarding Their Personal Finances

Defendants argue that the Court improperly precluded them from introducing evidence

regarding their personal finances, which they contend should have been presented to the jury

before it awarded punitive damages. That argument presumes that Defendants’ counsel were

prepared to present evidence regarding their clients’ financials at trial. Not so. In steps of

obvious non-compliance, Defendants failed to produce documents or information about their

finances at any point during the discovery period. At trial, they did not present any such evidence

before resting on January 22, 2024. Indeed, counsel’s first request to present their clients’

salaries and assets came on the morning of January 23, 2024, after the close of evidence but

before closing arguments.209 In response, the Court conveyed its view that proceeding in such a

manner was inappropriate for numerous reasons—namely, because counsel had not produced

any supporting documentation (e.g., bank statements or other indicia of net worth) for Plaintiff’s

counsel or the Court to review.210 However, the Court held that the issue should be decided only

207 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 25.

208 See Burella v. City of Philadelphia, 501 F.3d 134, 139 (3d Cir. 2007).

209 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 16.

210 See id. at 16–18.

after the jury made its preliminary determination regarding whether punitive damages would be

awarded in the first instance.211

During its deliberations, the jury submitted a note to the Court indicating that it was ready

to receive additional instructions regarding punitive damages.212 Defendants’ counsel renewed

their request to present evidence on their clients’ financial resources, but only in the form of

uncorroborated testimony.213 Even at that late stage, counsel had gathered no supporting

documentation to verify whatever figures their clients intended to convey orally from the stand.

The Court again communicated its view about the impropriety of reopening the record for

additional witness testimony at that late stage of the proceedings, which at a minimum would

have required providing Plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity to conduct cross-examination (for

which Plaintiff and her counsel could not have reasonably prepared).214

It is not the practice of this Court to condone litigation tactics which amount to a trial by

ambush. Accordingly, outside the presence of the jury, the Court suggested that the parties

consider reaching a stipulation about the relevant figures, and Plaintiff’s counsel expressed a

willingness to reach one if Defendants’ counsel could attest to their clients’ salaries and assets.215

However, when Plaintiff’s counsel attempted to confer with opposing counsel about a

stipulation, he was told that Defendants’ counsel had not even asked their clients about what

those figures were, notwithstanding that the jury had been deliberating for over two hours by that

211 Id. at 14, 17–18.

212 Jury Questions at 4 [Doc. No. 85] (“Ready for punitive damages instructions[.]”).

213 Trial Tr. Jan. 23, 2024, at 157, 162.

214 Id. at 157, 162.

215 See id. at 162.

point in time.216 Defendants’ counsel explicitly admitted to the Court at sidebar that, despite his

renewed request to reopen the record for his clients to testify, he had “not reviewed their

financials” and “would have to ask them what their salaries are.”217

Defendants’ counsel were unprepared or unwilling to face the reality that punitive

damages were to be considered by the jury. At every turn, they maintained a recalcitrant attitude

toward even the possibility of punitive damages being awarded. And yet, when they were given

the opportunity, at the latest possible moment in the trial, to prepare and/or present pertinent

evidence about their clients’ personal finances, they neglected to do so. They now contend that

the Court should nevertheless have granted their “requests to put on testimony . . . .”218 Such

prejudice to Mrs. Wexler would have been untenable, and any further delay would have been

unreasonable. Through their deliberate actions, defense counsel waived their right to present

such evidence. The Court identifies no basis for a new trial based on this sequence of events.

D. Remittitur of the Punitive Damages Award Is Required

Defendants argue that the punitive damages awards of $500,000 each against

Officer Hawkins and Detective Koenig are unconstitutionally excessive and are plainly

disproportionate to the harm Plaintiff suffered.

The right to a trial by jury includes giving a measure of deference to a jury’s

determination of appropriate punitive damages, particularly where such an award is free of

irrationality, passion, and prejudice.219 There is no question here that the jury, after making its

216 Id. (“MR. MALONE: . . . I asked counsel during the break do you know their financial situations and the answer

was I haven’t even asked them. So I don’t know what I can stipulate to when I haven’t even been told—

THE COURT: But you offered to stipulate to it. MR. MALONE: Yes[.]”).

217 Id. at 168.

218 Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. Post-Trial Relief at 18 [Doc. No. 104].

219 Willow Inn, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 399 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2005).

credibility assessments, accepted Mrs. Wexler’s testimony and rejected the narratives of Officer

Hawkins and Detective Koenig. Its punitive damages awards of $500,000 against each

Defendant must be acknowledged as the jurors’ collective, reasoned assessment of Defendants’

wrongs and the egregiousness of each Defendant’s conduct in this case. The modest

compensatory awards, by contrast, reflect the jurors’ careful consideration of the evidence, rather

than an arbitrary approach based on unsupported speculation. The Court is loath to conclude that

the jury’s punitive damages awards were unreasonable in this case. However, the Court has

latitude to consider a remittitur for an award that may exceed constitutional bounds.

The Supreme Court has explained that “[c]ompensatory damages are intended to redress

the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant’s wrongful conduct

[while] punitive damages serve a broader function; they are aimed at deterrence and

retribution.”220 As to the factual question of proportionality between a punitive damages award

and evidence of harm, “[t]he district judge is in the best position to evaluate the evidence

presented and determine whether or not the jury has come to a rationally based conclusion.”221

As to constitutional excessiveness, in evaluating a punitive damages award, district courts must

consider three guideposts: “(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2)

the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive

damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury and

the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.”222

220 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 416 (2003) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

221 Spence, 806 F.2d at 1201 (citing Murray, 610 F.2d at 152–53).

222 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 418 (citing BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996)).

“[T]he most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the

degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.”223 In evaluating reprehensibility, courts

consider whether: (1) the harm caused was physical as opposed to economic; (2) the tortious

conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; (3) the

target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; (4) the conduct involved repeated actions or was

an isolated incident; or (5) the harm was the result of intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or

mere accident.224 No one factor is necessarily sufficient, but the absence of all of them renders

any punitive damages award suspect.225

Even a cursory review of the relevant factors identified by the Supreme Court confirms

that a substantial punitive damages award is well supported in this case. Over five days of

proceedings, the evidence presented at trial told a troubling story. What began with an innocuous

exchange between a pedestrian and a police officer on a sunny day in June, amid joyful and

peaceful celebrations on the streets directly in front of the courthouse doors, evolved into a

shocking escalation of events which evinced flagrant abuse of authority at every turn.

The injuries Mrs. Wexler suffered included physical harm. Officer Hawkins, as evasive

and combative as she was on the stand,226 ultimately confessed—albeit only after being

confronted with her prior under-oath statements—to having “put one hand around”

Mrs. Wexler’s neck.227 Assigning due weight to the jury’s reasonable finding that Officer

223 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 575).

224 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419 (citing Gore, 517 U.S. at 576–77).

225 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 419.

226 Regrettably, the Court was required on several occasions to reprimand Officer Hawkins (outside the presence of

the jury) for her disruptive behavior, which served only to frustrate the efficiency of the proceedings and

demonstrated arrogance and a lack of respect for the judicial process. See, e.g., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 231–32.

For example, when Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in a line of questioning regarding the location of the record button on

a body-worn camera, Officer Hawkins repeated the same vague answer (“the top”) eight times. Id. at 174.

227 Hawkins Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 239.

Hawkins lacked probable cause to intensify the confrontation, her grabbing of Mrs. Wexler’s

throat, standing alone, evinces blatant indifference to Mrs. Wexler’s health and safety. The jury

was entitled to find that both Defendants then engaged in repeated conduct demonstrating a

reckless and wanton disregard for the truth. In the immediate aftermath of the incident, Officer

Hawkins, apparently dissatisfied with the CVN for disorderly conduct which had already been

written at the scene, prepared handwritten reports presenting a distorted factual narrative against

Mrs. Wexler. She repeated her falsehoods during her interview with Detective Koenig, and later

during the criminal proceedings against Mrs. Wexler.

Detective Koenig, in turn, admitted explicitly on the stand that he chose to accept Officer

Hawkins’s story for the sole reason that she was a sworn officer. Detective Koenig’s blind

reliance on Officer Hawkins’s statements is all the more deplorable in light of his failure to

inquire about the existence of body-worn camera footage of the incident (which there was none);

his failure to take any steps to identify police or civilian eyewitnesses; and his decision not to

speak to Mrs. Wexler or conduct any inquiry into her potential injuries before submitting serious

criminal charges against her to the DA. Detective Koenig’s failure to fulfill his duty to

investigate—including his decision not to speak to Mrs. Wexler or photograph her injuries, in

violation of the Philadelphia Police Department’s Directives228—evinced intentional malice and

a blatant indifference to Mrs. Wexler’s health and safety.229

Regarding the second guidepost, the Supreme Court has declined to impose a bright-line

ratio which a punitive damages award cannot exceed, and it has “consistently rejected the notion

228 Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 182–83, 194, 199; Koenig Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 18, 2024, at 34–37.

229 See Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 983 F.2d 459, 470–72 (3d Cir. 1992) (upholding $133,333.35 punitive

damages award against defendant police inspector for his deliberate “refus[al] to intercede in any way” to address

allegations of sex discrimination he acknowledged were a “problem”).

that the constitutional line is marked by a simple mathematical formula . . . .”230 The Court has

generally observed “that an award of more than four times the amount of compensatory damages

might be close to the line of constitutional propriety.”231 However, given that “there are no rigid

benchmarks,” the Court has clarified that “ratios greater than those . . . previously upheld may

comport with due process where ‘a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount

of economic damages.’”232 “A higher ratio may also be justified in cases in which the injury is

hard to detect or the monetary value of noneconomic harm might have been difficult to

determine,” and district courts may consider potential harm arising from a defendant’s conduct,

even if not realized, as part of the calculus.233

In this case, in addition to photographs and testimony regarding Mrs. Wexler’s physical

injuries, the jury received evidence speaking to Mrs. Wexler’s emotional and psychological

harms arising from her 16 hours of detention (without medical attention) and her defense against

serious criminal charges (including a felony count).234 Such harms would be difficult for any

reasonable jury to quantify in economic terms. The ratios of punitive to compensatory damages

were 125-to-1 for Officer Hawkins and 250-to-1 for Detective Koenig. Critically, however, the

respective compensatory damages awards against each Defendant were low figures—$4,000

against Officer Hawkins and $2,000 against Detective Koenig. Those compensatory amounts

230 See State Farm, 538 U.S. at 424–25 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 582).

231 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 425 (emphasis added) (citing Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 23–24

(1991)); see also Gore, 517 U.S. 559.

232 State Farm, 538 U.S. at 425 (quoting Gore, 517 U.S. at 582).

233 Gore, 517 U.S. at 582; State Farm, 538 U.S. at 418, 424–25.

234 The Court notes the testimony from Mrs. Wexler’s husband describing changes he perceived in his wife’s

behavior during and after the relevant events. See, e.g., D. Wexler Test., Trial Tr. Jan. 17, 2024, at 36–37 (“[I]t was

a very rough time. She would frequently—couldn’t get to sleep or, if she did, she would wake up kind of shaking

and kind of whimpering and crying. . . . Whenever we would even go out and there were police, she would almost

like try to stay on the other side of the street or whatever, but it was very tough.”).

demonstrate that the jury did not act out of passion or prejudice but rather made a reasoned

determination, based on the evidence, that even though Mrs. Wexler’s actual damages warranted

a smaller sum, a significantly higher punitive damages award was appropriate due to the

wrongfulness of Defendants’ abuses. The Court is not persuaded that the jury’s relatively modest

compensatory awards constitutionally precluded an assessment of substantial punitive damages

for the twin purposes of retribution and deterrence.

Under established precedent in the Third Circuit, unanimously adopted by every other

federal circuit to have considered the issue, punitive damages are permitted in § 1983 cases

against public officials even when a jury awards only nominal damages.235 Courts have often

observed that a rigid application of proportionality in cases seeking vindication of constitutional

rights—which are more likely to result in low or nominal damages—would defeat a jury’s ability

to award punitive damages at all.236 In cases like this one, where a plaintiff alleges reprehensible

misconduct by public officials but the compensatory award is low, “any appreciable exemplary

award would produce a ratio that would appear excessive” under a strict proportionality

standard.237 This Court agrees with the persuasive guidance from other circuit courts that “the

ratio component of the excessiveness inquiry . . . [is] of limited relevance in § 1983 cases where

235 Basista v. Weir, 340 F.2d 74, 87–88 (3d Cir. 1965); see also Gill v. Manuel, 488 F.2d 799, 802 (9th Cir. 1973)

(holding on appeal in a § 1983 suit against police officers that “an award of compensatory damages is not a

necessary prerequisite to an award of punitive damages” (citing Basista, 340 F.2d at 88)); Guzman v. W. State Bank

of Devils Lake, 540 F.2d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 1976); Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 161, 163–64 (10th Cir. 1976);

McCulloch v. Glasgow, 620 F.2d 47, 51 (5th Cir. 1980); Glover v. Ala. Dep’t of Corr., 734 F.2d 691, 694 (11th Cir.

1984), rev’d on other grounds, 474 U.S. 806 (1985); Erwin v. Manitowoc County, 872 F.2d 1292, 1299 (7th Cir.

1989); King v. Macri, 993 F.2d 294, 297–98 (2d Cir. 1993); De Jesus Nazario v. Morris Rodriguez, 554 F.3d 196,

204–05 (1st Cir. 2009).

236 Williams v. Kaufman County, 352 F.3d 994, 1016 (5th Cir. 2003).

237 Lee v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 805, 811 (2d Cir. 1996) (“In Gore, a 500 to 1 ratio was ‘breathtaking.’ However, in a

§ 1983 case in which the compensatory damages are nominal, a much higher ratio can be contemplated while

maintaining normal respiration.”).

the basis for the punitive damages award was[,] [e.g.,] the plaintiff’s unlawful arrest and the

plaintiff’s economic injury was so minimal as to be essentially nominal.”238

Given the limited utility of the ratio component in this § 1983 case, the Court carefully

addresses the third constitutional guidepost, which requires a review of the penalties imposed in

comparable cases. The Court has surveyed the punitive and compensatory damages awards in

other comparable excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution cases, some of which

are summarized below. To account for the effects of inflation in intervening years, the following

list includes both the actual punitive damages award and (*) that amount adjusted to 2024 dollars

using the Consumer Price Index:239

• $50,000/$60,233* ($1 in nominal damages): After an initial attempt to flee, plaintiff

surrendered by lying face down with his arms outstretched. Officer used knee strike and

choked and punched plaintiff. Kidis v. Reid, 976 F.3d 708 (6th Cir. 2020).

• $40,000/$71,627* ($1,000 in compensatory damages): Plaintiff, while handcuffed and

recovering from pepper spray in a police car, was pepper sprayed again by defendant

officer. Blackledge v. Carlone, 126 F. Supp. 2d 224 (D. Conn. 2001).

• $100,000/$135,053* ($60,000 in compensatory damages): After plaintiff, while

handcuffed, kicked officer in the groin, officer punched plaintiff in the face and neck and

kneed him in the back. Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013).

• $75,000/$148,554* ($1 in nominal damages and $1,000 in compensatory damages on

state law claim): Officers handcuffed plaintiff and beat him in the head with a baton.

Subsequent criminal charges for assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest were later

dropped. Lee v. Edwards, 101 F.3d 805 (2d Cir. 1996).

238 Arnold v. Wilder, 657 F.3d 353, 370 (6th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Romanski v. Detroit Ent.,

LLC, 428 F.3d 629, 645 (6th Cir. 2005)); cf. State Farm, 538 U.S. at 425–26 (cautioning that higher ratios

particularly run the risk of exceeding the upper parameters of due process “when compensatory damages are

substantial,” and therefore rejecting a 145-to-1 ratio where the plaintiffs had been awarded $1 million in

compensatory damages for a year and a half of emotional distress (emphasis added)).

239 Consumer Price Index Inflation Calculator, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (last visited May 17, 2024).

• $150,000/$326,160* (nominal damages on excessive force and false arrest claims and

$75,000 in compensatory damages on malicious prosecution claim): After altercation

with defendant court security officers at state courthouse, plaintiff held at Rikers Island

for two months awaiting trial on criminal charges which were later dropped. King v.

Macri, 993 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1993).

• $150,000/$365,441* ($650,000 in compensatory damages): During dispute over parking

violation, police officer attacked plaintiff, causing two displaced vertebrae, a cracked rib,

and serious head trauma, then pressed his gun into plaintiff’s head. Plaintiff was held in

custody for 60 hours, made to stand trial, and acquitted on all counts. Ismail v. Cohen,

899 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1990).

• $550,000/$760,069* ($57,400 in compensatory damages): Officer placed plaintiff in a

chokehold and pepper sprayed her in front of her school-aged children, after which she

was arrested, held for six hours, and arraigned on felony and other charges on which she

was found not guilty. Arnold v. Wilder, 657 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2011).

• $600,000/$944,422* ($279.05 in compensatory damages): Plaintiff was detained by

defendant casino security officer, who represented herself to be a police officer, for

finding and playing a five-cent token at a slot machine. Romanski v. Detroit Ent., LLC,

428 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005).

• $2 million/$2.86 million* ($500,000 in compensatory damages): During traffic stop,

defendant state trooper held plaintiff police detective at gunpoint, used pepper spray, and

struck plaintiff’s head, after which plaintiff was criminally charged. Wade v. Colaner,

No. 06-3715, 2010 WL 5479629 (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2010).

• $2.2 million/$3.99 million* ($778,000 in compensatory damages): Defendant officer

permitted inmate into plaintiff’s cell. Plaintiff was viciously beaten, suffered for hours,

and ultimately died. Gregory v. Shelby County, 220 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2000).

Although this Court accords deference to this range of outcomes (as it must), it remains

true that the determination of a just punitive damages award cannot be reduced to a wooden

application of comparable awards, for the same reasons that the calculus cannot be simplified to

a mathematical formula. Each case is decided independently, just as this unique jury of eight

citizens brought their own sense of reasonableness to their decision. The jury’s verdict was a

wholesale repudiation of Defendants’ factual narrative, resulting in a finding of liability on each

and every one of the seven state and federal counts. Moreover, unlike in other comparable cases

involving mitigating factors—e.g., an admission to having driven while intoxicated,240 or having

kicked a law enforcement officer in the groin241—this case involved an attack by a police officer

upon a citizen who, the jury necessarily found, was a law-abiding citizen merely trying to cross a

street after leaving synagogue, as well as a police detective’s attempt to cover up that officer’s

misconduct by intentionally and blindly accepting her word. Because of the felony and other

criminal counts filed against her, Mrs. Wexler was required to retain counsel and defend herself

throughout several proceedings before all charges were withdrawn and dismissed.

“Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power.”242 Increasingly, the

citizens in our Nation have come to realize that they need not bend to the will of any police

officer for any improper reason. It has never been acceptable for law enforcement officials, who

are bound by a sworn obligation to uphold the law, to use excessive force upon a law-abiding

citizen for attempting to cross the street or exercising her right to criticize the police, as the jury

reasonably found in this case. It is all the more perverse for police officers to orchestrate criminal

charges ex post against that injured citizen in an attempt to avoid responsibility. Arrogance and

power are a dangerous combination. When further combined with ignorance and hostility, this

type of abuse by police officials can occur, and did occur.

In this case, notwithstanding the jury’s low compensatory damages awards, the

reprehensibility of Defendants’ conduct supports a substantial constitutional limit for punitive

damages. In line with the harm suffered by Mrs. Wexler here, and taking each of the guideposts

into consideration, the Court finds that the constitutional upper limit in this case is a punitive

damages award of $250,000 against Officer Hawkins and $250,000 against Detective Koenig.

240 Lee, 101 F.3d at 807.

241 Payne, 711 F.3d at 101.

242 William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar act 2, sc. 1.

The equality of the jury’s original punitive damages awards was appropriate, as neither

Defendant could have caused the full extent of constitutional harm without the other, so the

Court imposes the same adjusted amount against each Defendant. These reduced amounts give

deference to the jury’s determination and serve the purposes of retribution and deterrence, while

also conforming with constitutional due process limitations.243

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ motion will be granted in part and denied in

part. The Court will grant a partial remittitur of the jury’s punitive damages awards. The Court

declines to grant Defendants a new trial under Rule 59(a) or judgment as a matter of law under

Rule 50(b). An order follows.

243 Because the Court has based its decision on due process concerns, not because the award is inconsistent with the

evidence in the case, the award is reduced as a matter of law, and no new trial on damages is required. Cortez v.

Trans Union, LLC, 617 F.3d 688, 716 (3d Cir. 2010).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

TZVIA WEXLER, :

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. : No. 19-CV-5760-CMR

:

CHARMAINE HAWKINS, et al., :

Defendants. :

:

JOINT STAMENT

Defendants, Charmaine Hawkins, James Koenig, and Kelly Keenan, and Plaintiff, Tzvia

Wexler, by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby respectfully submit this joint statement

pursuant to the Court’s instruction on September 28, 2023, following a scheduled telephone

conference on December 20, 2023, regarding the following:

(a) Agreed upon and disputed facts.

The parties stipulate to the following undisputed facts: date, time, and location; that Plaintiff,

Tziva Wexler, was arrested and criminally charged which terminated in Plaintiff’s favor; that

Defendants, Police Officer Hawkins, was acting as a police officer in full uniform on June 9, 2019.

The parties dispute all other facts leading up to and following Plaintiff’s arrest on June 9, 2019.

(b) Objections to any proposed witnesses.

The parties agree to exclude witnesses Dr. Phillip Nimoityn, Ofra Sharabani, and Kimberly

Klayman (except as may be needed on rebuttal). Defendants object to any witness not named in

Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Memo. (ECF No. 44).

(c) Objections to any proposed exhibits (including objections to genuineness and

authenticity).

The parties agree to individually list the documents in Plaintiff’s exhibit “Criminal Case

Discovery Packet” as individual exhibits. Defendants object to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits PPD

Directives 1, PPD Directive 4.21, and PPD Directive 10.2, in accordance with and for reasons set forth

in Defendants’ Motion in Limine. (ECF No. 53).

(d) Objections to any depositions to be read at trial.

The parties agree to the admissibility of all depositions listed in the Joint Exhibit List (ECF

No. 45), for purposes of impeachment.

(e) Disputed legal issues.

The remaining disputed legal issue is Defendants’ objection to Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits

PPD Directives 1, PPD Directive 4.21, and PPD Directive 10.2, in accordance with and for reasons set

forth in Defendants’ Motion in Limine, (ECF No. 53), to which Plaintiff has filed no response.

(f) Amendments to pleadings.

The parties agree to stipulate Plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal with prejudice of Count VIII –

False Light/Invasion of Privacy under PA law (against all defendants) of Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF

No. 1). The parties agree to stipulate Plaintiff’s voluntary withdrawal with prejudice of all claims

against Defendant Kelly Keenan and removal of Kelly Keenan as a Defendant in the present matter.

(g) Stipulated to and disputed points for charge:

The parties stipulate to the language contained in Defendant’s proposed points for charge. (ECF

No. 49).

(h) Verdict sheet and special interrogatories.

The parties stipulate to Defendants’ proposed verdict sheet. (ECF No. 50), with changes made

pursuant to the withdrawal of Count VIII – False Light/Invasion of Privacy under PA law (against all

defendants) of Plaintiff’s complaint, and withdrawal of all claims against Defendant Kelly Keenan.

The parties stipulate to Defendants’ proposed voir dire (ECF No. 51), with the addition of the

following voir dire questions:

Some events in this case took place during the 2019 Pride Parade, which celebrates the Lesbian,

Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender community, is there any reason this would affect your ability to render

a just, fair, honest, and impartial verdict?

The Plaintiff in this case is employed by "Friends of Israel Disabled Veterans" and was

previously employed by "Friends of the Israeli Defense Forces," which support the country of Israel

and it's military; is there any reason this would affect your ability to render a just, fair, honest, and

impartial verdict in this case?

(i) Number of days required for trial.

The parties agree that 3 to 4 days will be required for trial.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

:

TZVIA WEXLER, :

Plaintiff, :

: CIVIL ACTION

v. : No. 19-CV-5760-CMR

:

CHARMAINE HAWKINS, et al., :

Defendants. :

:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the date below, the Joint Statement, was emailed to the Court and

all counsel.

Date: December 21, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonah Santiago-Pagán

Jonah Santiago-Pagán

Pa. Attorney ID No. 326442

City of Philadelphia Law Department

1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

215-683-5428 (phone)

215-683-5397 (fax)

jonah.santiago-pagan@phila.gov