Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells v. Loizos

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 18, 2015



ELIZABETH T. HEY, Magistrate Judge.

On December 11, 2014, after a four day trial before me, the jury returned a verdict for Defendant in this excessive force/malicious prosecution case. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of inadmissible hearsay evidence. Doc. 109. Defendant responded that Plaintiff waived the claim by failing to object at trial, that the admission of the hearsay did not deprive Plaintiff of a fair trial, and that the court did not commit plain error by failing to strike the hearsay sua sponte. Doc. 110. For the reasons that follow, I will deny the motion.


On July 20, 2004, Defendant Loizos, a Philadelphia police officer who was on-duty at the time, received a radio call for a person with a gun in the vicinity of 18th and Thompson. N.T. 12/9/14 at 94. When Officer Loizos arrived at that corner, a male who matched the description in the radio call, later identified as Plaintiff, began running across a vacant, overgrown lot towards Seybert Street. Id. at 12. Although Officer Loizos never saw Plaintiff holding a gun, id. at 120-21, he testified that he saw Plaintiff grab the waistband of his pants, which indicated to the officer that Plaintiff had a gun there, and further testified that during the chase, Plaintiff swung his arm around and Officer Loizos heard "pop, pop, pop" and saw smoke coming from Plaintiff's hand and felt something strike his elbow. Id. at 106-08. The officer fired at Plaintiff, and after a further chase fired again as Plaintiff entered a house on Ingersoll Street. Id. at 110-16. During the chase, Defendant fired a total of seven shots at Plaintiff, hitting him several times. Id. at 12, 24-25, 30, 90. Plaintiff was arrested inside the house on Ingersoll Street. Id. at 115. No gun was ever found. Id. at 90.

At trial, Plaintiff denied having a gun, let alone firing shots at Officer Loizos. N.T. 12/9/14 at 28. Therefore, the fact that no gun was ever found supported Plaintiff's testimony.

During his testimony, Detective Timothy Scally described the investigation that took place after the shooting, including the efforts undertaken to locate the spent casings and Plaintiff's gun in the overgrown lot. N.T. 12/10/14 at 31-32, 37-42, 50-60. During his direct examination, Detective Scally stated that he concluded that Plaintiff had a gun, but that it was found by someone else and was "sold on the street." Id. at 60. He stated that this conclusion was based on an interview with Reginald Strickland. Id. at 61. Plaintiff's counsel did not object to any of these questions. During cross-examination, Plaintiff's counsel asked the detective how he determined that someone else picked up the gun that Plaintiff allegedly had. Id. at 62. Again, Detective Scally said he had received that information from Mr. Strickland. Id.

The defense planned to call Mr. Strickland to testify, and the court had made arrangements to have him testify via video-teleconference from the prison where he was serving a sentence unrelated to this trial; however Mr. Strickland refused to take the stand. N.T. 12/11/14 at 12. The defense elected to proceed without his testimony, and Plaintiff did not raise any objection or seek to compel Mr. Strickland's testimony. Thus, Plaintiff was never able to cross-examine Mr. Strickland about the information relayed to the jury by Detective Scally regarding the ultimate whereabouts of the gun Plaintiff allegedly had at the time Officer Loizos shot him. Neither counsel made reference in closing argument to Detective Scally's testimony respecting what happened to the gun. As previously mentioned, the jury returned a verdict for the defense.

On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed this motion for a new trial arguing that Mr. Strickland's failure to testify amounted to an irregularity in the proceeding that caused unfair surprise and resulted in the admission of inadmissible hearsay. Doc. 109. The defense has responded that Plaintiff's counsel's failure to object to the hearsay results in a waiver of the argument, that the jury could have inferred from other evidence that Plaintiff shot at Defendant, and that the court did not commit plain error in failing to strike Detective Scally's testimony sua sponte. Doc. 110.


After a jury trial, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 allows the court in an exercise of its discretion, to grant a new trial if "the jury's verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or if substantial errors occurred in the admission of evidence or in instructing the jury." Kidd v. Pa. Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement, Civ. No. 97-5577, 2001 WL 1159770, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2001) (citing Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 251 (1940)). Errors committed during the course of a trial cannot justify the grant of a new trial unless they affected the substantial rights of the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. Our circuit court has held that a court should grant a new trial "only when the record shows that the jury's verdict resulted in a miscarriage of justice or where the verdict, on the record, cries out to be overturned or shocks our conscience." Williamson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1353 (3d Cir. 1991). "[A]bsent a showing of substantial injustice or prejudicial error, a new trial is not warranted and it is the court's duty to respect a plausible jury verdict. Dowd v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., Civ. No. 04-294, 2006 WL 1371183, at *6 (E.D. Pa. May 16, 2006) (quoting Montgomery Co. v. Microvote Corp., Civ. No. 97-6331, 2001 WL 722150, at *8 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2001)).

Consideration of Plaintiff's motion is further complicated because counsel failed to object at trial to the admission of the evidence/testimony that is the basis of this motion. "[I]t is clear that a party who fails to object to errors at trial waives the right to complain about them following trial." Waldorf v. Shufa, 142 F.3d 601, 629 (3d Cir. 1998). Specifically with respect to the admission of evidence, "a party is not entitled to receive a new trial for objections to evidence that he did not make at or prior to the initial trial, even if they may have been successful." Ashford v. Bartz, Civ. No. 04-642, 2010 WL 272009, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2010) (citing Wilson v. Vermont Castings, Inc., 170 F.3d 391, 295 (3d Cir. 1999); Waldorf, 142 F.3d at 629; Caisson Corp. v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 622 F.2d 672, 681 (3d Cir. 1980)). An exception to waiver occurs when "counsel fail[s] to object to a fundamental and prejudicial error resulting in a miscarriage of justice." Wilson, 170 F.3d at 395-96 (quoting Fleck v. KDI Sylvan Pools, Inc., 981 F.2d 107, 116 (3d Cir. 1992)).


As explained in the factual summation above, during the defense case the jury heard from Detective Scally that he had received information from Mr. Strickland that Plaintiff's gun was picked up and sold on the street. Plaintiff's counsel failed to object to the testimony despite the fact that it was hearsay. Moreover, on cross-examination, Plaintiff's counsel asked Detective Scally about Mr. Strickland's statement, allowing the detective to repeat that Mr. Strickland told him that someone picked up the gun and sold it on the street. N.T. 12/10/14 at 60-61, 62.

In his motion for a new trial, Plaintiff's counsel stated that he did not object to the statement because Mr. Strickland was expected to testify and he "did not want it to appear to the jury that [P]laintiff was attempting to hide this information." Doc. 109-1 at 2. As previously mentioned, the Third Circuit has recognized an exception to the waiver rule when counsel fails to object to a "fundamental and prejudicial error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Wilson, 170 F.3d at 395-96 (quoting Fleck, 981 F.2d at 116). However I have found no case allowing for an exception to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.