THE U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has affirmed a local jury’s verdict that favored a man who filed a police brutality lawsuit.
The 9th Circuit ruled that there was no error in entering judgment for plaintiff Raymond Aldan Ayuyu.
“The jury obviously believed the evidence that the defendant (Police Officer Hillary Tagabuel) had used improper means in obtaining the confession, and believed that the plaintiff had been denied advice that he could have from a lawyer if he asked for one,” said the ruling penned by Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin and concurred by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder and Chief Judge for the District of Guam John Unpingco.
The judges said that if counsel had a problem with the anomalous answers of the jury on the verdict form, counsel waived the opportunity to clarify the verdict form by failing to present any question about the form before the jury retired.
“Because the parties did not object to the confusion caused by their chosen form of the interrogatories, neither can now complain about the form of the verdict on appeal,” said the judges who conducted the first special sitting proceedings in the CNMI last month.
Attorney Steven Pixley, counsel for Ayuyu, said they were “extremely gratified” by the 9th Circuit ruling.
“The 9th Circuit carefully reviewed the record and agreed with (U.S. District Court) Judge Alex R. Munson that sufficient evidence was presented to support the verdict,” said Pixley in a press statement issued yesterday.
Ayuyu in his lawsuit filed in 1999 alleged that Tagabuel and other unnamed police officers physically coerced him to sign a written confession to a criminal offense.
A jury returned a verdict in Nov. 2000, awarding Ayuyu $10,000 in punitive damages and $1 in punitive damages.
The Attorney General’s Office filed an appeal in the 9th circuit.
Assistant Attorney General Stacey D. Conner, on behalf of Tagabuel, argued that the jury had incorrectly found that Ayuyu’s 6th Amendment rights were violated.
“(Such rights) don’t attach until a person is formally charged with a crime. The plaintiff in this case had not been charged with a crime up to the time police spoke with him,” said O’Conner in an earlier interview. She said that 6th Amendment rights were not applicable to the plaintiff in this case.
