Buffalo, NY — Attorneys representing Erie County and several deputies from the Holding Center are contesting a $100 million jury verdict awarded for the 2012 death of inmate Richard Metcalf Jr. The legal team has cited procedural mishaps and a judicial censure as key elements influencing their challenge. The monumental verdict was handed down in April following allegations of excessive use of force that allegedly led to Metcalf’s death.
Metcalf died on November 30, 2012, two days after deputies reportedly forcibly removed him from his cell, using restraint techniques that included a spit mask tied around his neck and a pillowcase over his head before transferring him to a hospital. The jury found that the actions of five deputies resulted in excessive force, and four were also found to have been negligent and deliberately indifferent to Metcalf’s medical needs.
The substantial financial award consists of $95 million in compensatory damages awarded to Metcalf’s father, Richard Metcalf Sr., and an additional $5 million in punitive damages determined after a subsequent hearing.
However, the defendants argue that the amount is excessive and have requested State Supreme Court Justice Mark J. Grisanti to either reduce the sum to around $3 million or grant a new trial. They maintain that the deputies acted within the bounds of reasonable behavior given the circumstances they faced with Metcalf.
Central to the defense’s challenge is the contention that the deputies have qualified immunity, which typically shields law enforcement from liability under certain conditions. Moreover, they claim that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings, including the allocation of punitive damages.
Further complicating matters, the censure of Justice Grisanti by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct occurred shortly before the jury issued its punitive award, casting doubt on his continued legal authority. This censure relates to a separate issue and not directly to the Metcalf case. Despite this, Grisanti presided over the trial, although his term is soon to expire without reappointment.
The defense also points to potential errors in the jury instructions and the framing of questions that they argue could have unfairly influenced the jury’s decisions. They suggest that liability could also potentially extend to other parties not included in the trial, such as the police department and medical facilities involved in transporting and treating Metcalf.
Further hearings are scheduled, with responses from Richard Metcalf Sr.’s attorneys due by early August, followed by a reply from the defense later in the month, setting the stage for a possible protracted legal battle.
The case has drawn significant attention given the size of the damages awarded and the tragic circumstances surrounding Metcalf’s death, highlighting ongoing concerns about the treatment of inmates and the use of force within correctional facilities.