Mirror, Mirror on the Wall

A federal jury returned a verdict of $250,000 against a Corrections Officer in Connecticut the other day. His offense? The guard abused a prisoner who was shackled in four point restraints. It was an important vindication of the civil rights of prisoners. And the lawyers for the prisoner should be proud of their work.

It is difficult to win an Eighth Amendment claim. One need prove not merely that the force used was excessive, but that it was administered for the very purpose of causing pain.

But how deeply and quickly we fall in love with the sound of our own voices. Is it a species of sociopathy -- a lawyer's inability to see beyond his own shadow?

On the courthouse steps after the verdict, one of the plaintiff's lawyers had this to say: "This might be the most significant verdict against the [state] Department of Correction ever, because of the effect it should have on guards and other staff members who might be tempted to mistreat inmates," Antonio Ponvert said. "It sends a loud message that no one is immune from the law and the Constitution is fully alive within the prison facilities of this state." Mirror, Mirror on the Page Indeed, the verdict was not against the DOC at all. The defendant's conduct was so egregious, the DOC cut him loose.

Ponvert is one of the species of lawyers who calls his own press conferences. He should spend a little more time reading something other than his own clippings.

In 1999, another Connecticut jury returned a verdict of $2.1 million against two Department of Corrections officers for their mistreatment of a prisoner. The case was King v. Verdone, et al., a case I tried. Unlike Ponvert's case, the Department of Corrections both defended the tortfeasors and paid the remiited verdict. In Ponvert's case, the defendant had to defend himself. Whether the defendant has anything to pay the verdict remains to be seen.

The King verdict changed nothing in the DOC, as witnessed by the need for this latest case. It feels great to win a case, and the illusion of efficacy transports. But the grim reality remains: litigation changes little.

Comments

[Mahan Atma]

[i]"But the grim reality remains: litigation changes little."[/i]

I'd modify that to say Eighth Amendment money lawsuits from individual prisoners change little; the state simply treats damage as the cost of "doing business".

But if you get a federal judge seriously, you can change a lot. Check out the Harris case, which resulted in major reforms of the Philadelphia prison system, thanks largely to the efforts of Judge Norma Shapiro and a few good attorneys:

http://www.law.upenn.edu/alumni/alumnijournal/Spring2001/feature4/page2.html

Similarly, Judge Henderson out here recently took the prison medical system into receivership:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/01/MNGOCDHPP71.DTL

That case has the potential to result in real change as well.

[Christopher King]

You won't get a lot of argument from me on that, Norm. I watched other lawyers prevail in big cases, and even watched Terry Gilbert go after them so hard in Cleveland he was part of the reason that they had to build another jail facility on Eighth Amendment principles.

Which of course they eventually filled right back to the brim.

Peace.

[Christopher King]

PS: On a related note, it looks like Chief Dunn has some.... er, travel plans:

http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2006/03/dunn-gone-south.html

Not that they will give me any credit for that :)