Burgess v. Goldstein

997 F.3d 541

Sabein BURGESS, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Gerald Alan GOLDSTEIN, Defendant - Appellant,andBaltimore Police Department; Detective William Ritz; Daniel Van Gelder; Officer Dale Weese; Officer Richard Purtell; Detective/Sgt. Steven Lehman; Detective Robert Patton; Detective Neverdon; Unknown Employees of the Baltimore Police Department; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore; Kelly Miles, Officer; John Boyd, Officer; John Skinner, Officer; Dean Palmere, Officer; Detective Gerald Alan Goldstein, Defendants.

Sabein Burgess, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.Gerald Alan Goldstein, Detective; Baltimore Police Department; Steven Lehman, Detective/Sgt.; Mayor and City Council of Baltimore; William Ritz, Detective; Daniel Van Gelder, Defendants – Appellees,andDale Weese, Officer; Robert Patton, Detective; Unknown Employees of the Baltimore Police Department; Kelly Miles, Officer; John Boyd, Officer; John Skinner, Officer; Dean Palmere, Officer; Richard Purtell, Officer; Neverdon, Detective, Defendants.

No. 19-1600

No. 19-1602

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: December 11, 2020

Decided: May 14, 2021

ARGUED: Michael Patrick Redmond, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Jon Loevy, LOEVY & LOEVY, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: Andre M. Davis, Rachel A. Simmonsen, BALTIMORE CITY LAW DEPARTMENT, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Gayle Horn, Steven Art, Theresa Kleinhaus, LOEVY & LOEVY, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Before FLOYD, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded by published opinion. Judge Quattlebaum wrote the opinion in which Judge Floyd and Judge Thacker joined.

QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge:

The facts underlying this appeal are dramatic and emotional. They involve unsavory characters from the Baltimore drug underworld, a brutal murder, a wrongful conviction and a $15 million judgment against a Baltimore Police Department officer for withholding and fabricating evidence. But the questions presented to us are not materially different from those we face in much more mundane cases. Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict? Did the district court err in failing to give a requested jury instruction? And did the district court allow inadmissible hearsay evidence?

Our answers to those questions are determined largely based on the standard of review we must employ. Because there was evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found police misconduct, we affirm the district court's denial of motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial under Rules 50 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the district court's jury instructions, taken as a whole, complied with the law and the court's earlier rulings, we find no error in them. And, although the district court improperly admitted hearsay evidence, the error, in the context of the record as a whole, was harmless. For those reasons, as more fully explained below, we affirm the jury's verdict and the district court's denial of the Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions. But we do reverse the district court's dismissal of Burgess’ claim against the Baltimore Police Department under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York , 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), as described below.

I.

Michelle Dyson was murdered late in the evening of October 5, 1994, at her home in Baltimore. Sabein Burgess, Dyson's boyfriend, was with Dyson at the home earlier that evening but left to facilitate a drug deal. Before he left, he saw Dyson put her children to bed. When he returned, he found the door of the home cracked, the front room ransacked and Dyson shot in the basement. According to Burgess, he exited the home to seek help from the police he had seen nearby, and, once he determined the police were no longer in the area, he asked a neighbor to call 911. Burgess then returned to the basement to attend to Dyson.

Around 10:27 p.m., the Baltimore Police Department ("BPD") received a call about a shooting at Dyson's house. When dispatched officers arrived on the scene, they found Burgess with Dyson's body in the basement. Burgess was handcuffed and swabbed for gunshot residue. The defendant, Gerald Goldstein, arrived on the scene around 10:45 p.m., where three or four uniformed officers were already present, and continued the investigation of the crime scene as the lead detective.

The facts surrounding Dyson's four young children at the home are heavily disputed. Reports from BPD and the Department of Social Services ("DSS") from the night of the murder indicate that the children were upstairs sleeping at the time of the incident. Further, of the thirteen officers dispatched to the crime scene, each of the eight known officers who testified, or whose testimony was stipulated, denied speaking to Dyson's children on the night of the homicide.¹ But many years later, two of Dyson's four children said one or more uniformed BPD officers took them to the living room so they could get dressed and then questioned them. A BPD officer took the children from the home to DSS, then to the hospital where relatives took over care. But there is conflicting evidence as to the exact time the children left the house. Certain records indicate the children were removed from the house at 10:30 p.m. However, based on other records, the officer who transported the children testified that the children left the scene at 11:23 p.m.

BPD officers interviewed Burgess the night of the murder at the home. Later, they took him from the crime scene to the Homicide Unit at the police station for questioning by Goldstein and another detective. Burgess’ statement to the detectives contained inconsistencies about what he was doing before the murder. Nevertheless, he was released that night.

As the investigation continued, the victim's father, Ron Dyson, spoke to Goldstein's supervisor, Detective Sergeant Steven Lehmann. Lehmann recorded handwritten notes from the call indicating that Mr. Dyson had been trying to reach Goldstein. His note, which was referred to as "the Lehmann Note," included the following notation: "Child Bryan? Witnes[s] ‘get down basement.’ " J.A. 2517. Importantly, one of Dyson's children was named Brian Rainey. Brian's subsequent testimony in the civil trial about what he saw the night his mother was murdered is critical to the issues before us.

The Lehmann Note contained another notation: "[t]hinks a guy named ‘Little Man.’ Mother-in-Law got a call from jail saying ‘Little Man[’] did it." J.A. 2517. As described in more detail below, whether Little Man was known by the police to be an alternative suspect is also important to the claims before us.

Goldstein's homicide report included reports from other officers on the scene, names of witnesses and details about the ongoing investigation. One of those reports noted that the "victim's four children who were asleep on the second floor were turned over to the Department of Social Services." J.A. 2459. This report is central to Burgess’ claim that Goldstein fabricated evidence.

About one month after the murder, the BPD Trace Analysis Unit provided Goldstein with the Gunshot Primer Residue Report indicating that, based on samples taken from the backs of the thumbs and forefingers, gunshot primer residue was found on Burgess’ left and right hand. The report acknowledged that "[t]here is a possibility that these residues were transferred from the surface of a firearm or from an object which lay immediately adjacent to a firearm during its discharge." J.A. 2516. But it also explained that "[m]ost probably, however, the subject's hands were immediately adjacent to a discharging firearm or were themselves used to fire the firearm within a few hours of (time) 11:05 P.M...." J.A. 2516.

A few days later, based on the conflicting statements Burgess gave about where he went after he left Dyson's house and the gunshot residue found on both hands, Goldstein applied for and received a statement of charges leading to Burgess’ arrest for Dyson's murder. The day of his arrest, Burgess gave an additional interview. During the interview, Goldstein asked Burgess about whether he knew someone named "Little Man." Burgess responded that "Little Man" was someone he knew but that he did not sell drugs for him nor did he know his real name.

The State of Maryland grand jury charged Burgess with first degree murder, as well as handgun charges. Burgess maintained his innocence, leading to a two-day trial in June 1995, where he was represented by defense attorney Gordon Tayback. The state presented several witnesses including Goldstein, the gunshot residue technician and Dyson's neighbor whom Burgess summoned to call the police. Burgess did not testify at the trial or present any witnesses. (J.A. 2402.) The jury found Burgess guilty of murdering Dyson and all charges, and the trial court later sentenced him to life plus 20 years in prison.

Three years later, a man named Charles Dorsey, then serving a 45-year sentence for attempted murder and armed robbery, confessed to killing Dyson. In 2013, Burgess filed a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, relying on several pieces of newly discovered evidence, including Dorsey's confession, concerns with the gunshot residue evidence and its interpretation and Brian—the victim's child—coming forward as a witness. Notably, Brian claimed that he was awakened the night of the murder, saw a man force his mother into their basement and that the man was not Burgess. The state did not oppose the Petition and the Circuit Court vacated the conviction and granted a new trial. The state entered a nolle prosequi rather than conduct a second trial. As a result, Burgess was released from prison.

II.

In 2015, Burgess sued the City of Baltimore, the BPD and a host of elected and non-elected...