Bridgeport, Conn. — A man recently exonerated after spending three decades in prison has urged a federal judge to dismiss a Connecticut town’s attempt to overturn a $5.7 million award associated with evidence fabrication. Ralph “Ricky” Birch contended in a filing that the evidence presented in his favor supports his claims and that the town’s previous defeat in an appellate court strengthens his case.
In a legal response submitted to U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden, Birch emphasized that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, federal judges can only nullify jury verdicts under specific circumstances. He referenced a landmark Second Circuit case that asserts that verdicts may be overturned only if they are based on pure speculation or if the evidence overwhelmingly favors the party seeking to alter the verdict.
Birch argued that a federal jury in March made a reasonable determination that Andrew Ocif, a state police detective, supplied witness Todd Cocchia with details about the 1985 murder of Everett Carr. He noted that former New Milford police officer David Shortt, who has since passed away, failed to intervene in the alleged evidence fabrication, supporting claims of negligence against him.
Cocchia, who previously testified that Birch confessed to the crime during Birch’s 1989 felony murder trial, later retracted his statement 27 years afterward. Birch’s legal team maintained that this recantation was crucial during the trial that ultimately led to his exoneration.
In his objection, Birch also referenced a ruling from the Second Circuit, which had previously found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusions regarding Ocif’s conduct during Cocchia’s testimony. This earlier ruling, he argued, prevents Judge Bolden from granting the town’s request for judgment in their favor based on similar claims.
Birch further countered the town’s assertions that a settlement in a related state case might affect his federal win by explaining that the settlement did not constitute an official state award, which would allow the town to reduce its liability. He also pointed out that the provisions allowing such offsets were instituted after his settlement and should not apply retroactively.
The town of New Milford has sought to have Birch’s verdict overturned, claiming that Cocchia’s original statements to investigators implicated Birch in the murder prior to any coaching by Ocif. They contend that the informant’s testimony was pivotal in the subsequent charges and conviction against Birch.
In 1989, prosecutors alleged that Birch and his accomplice, Shawn Henning, brutally murdered Carr during a burglary gone wrong, claiming they inflicted multiple stab wounds and slit the victim’s throat. Birch’s attorneys argued that he and Henning were not violent criminals but rather small-time burglars attempting to fuel a drug habit at the time of the incident.
According to the defense, critical forensic evidence, including bloodstains and shoeprints at the crime scene, did not match either Birch or Henning. Witnesses testified that the physical evidence from the murder scene and the supposed connection to the crime were flawed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted Birch and Henning’s habeas corpus petitions in 2019, leading state prosecutors to decline to retry the case. During the most recent trial, a jury found both Shortt’s negligence and the town’s actions concerning Birch’s conviction unreasonable.
In March, following the trial, Judge Bolden increased Birch’s award to nearly $7.7 million, factoring in $2 million in interest tied to the town’s refusal to accept a prior settlement offer.
Legal representatives for both Birch and the town have not commented on the matter following the latest court developments. Birch’s legal team includes attorneys from Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP, as well as Kirschbaum Law Group LLC, while the town is represented by Hassett & George PC.
This case is identified as Birch v. New Milford et al., under case number 3:20-cv-01790 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
This article was automatically generated, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to [email protected].