When he ran for mayor, Bill de Blasio made a point of talking about doing what was right and what was just. Based on these basic principles, our mayor-to-be promised to reform the NYPD’s Stop and Frisk program and settle the Central Park Five case, and he followed through on both counts, even though both policy calls were politically loaded.
The City engaged in early settlement talks in other serious cases, such as the malicious prosecution and conviction of David Ranta and the wrongful death of Eric Garner. These two settlements were not just right, they were good business. By quickly confronting situations with likely liability and serious damages, the City was able to save money and avoid expensive and divisive litigation. These cases are but a few where New York was willing to take a nuanced view on litigation, to acknowledge its responsibility for its mistakes, and to reconcile that exposure with its obligation to do what is right by its citizens.
So why is Alan Newton getting such a screwing from the City?
To recap, Alan Newton was convicted in 1985 of a Bronx rape and robbery over his protestations of innocence. He repeatedly sought the DNA evidence for testing but it was reported lost by the DA and the NYPD. Many years later it turned up. Subsequent tests conclusively exonerated Newton and his conviction was vacated. By then he had spent 22 years in prison for crimes he had not committed.
Newton sued New York City and various officials in the NYPD, claiming that the City’s evidence management system was so inadequate that it violated his rights to due process and access to the courts. The jury sided with Newton and awarded him $18 million. The district court set aside the verdict but the ruling was reversed and the jury’s verdict reinstated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (See here for more details on both the conviction and the civil litigation).