Bridgeport, Conn. — A man wrongfully imprisoned for 30 years has urged a federal judge to reject a Connecticut town’s attempt to overturn a substantial verdict awarded for evidence fabrication. Ralph “Ricky” Birch’s plea comes in response to New Milford’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, where he argues that both the evidence and a previous court ruling support his case.
In legal documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden, Birch cited Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, explaining that the criteria for overturning a jury’s decision are restrictive and seldom met. He pointed out that jury verdicts can be set aside solely if they are based on unfounded assumptions or if overwhelming evidence clearly favors the opposing party.
Birch asserted that in March, a federal jury justifiably concluded that a state police detective improperly assisted a key witness who testified against him during his 1989 murder trial. He claims that former police officer David Shortt, who has since passed away, failed to intervene in the alleged misconduct—a fact that Birch argues should validate the jury’s findings.
The witness, Todd Cocchia, had originally testified that Birch confessed to the murder of Everett Carr, but he recanted this statement 27 years later, a shift that Birch’s legal team highlighted during the trial. Additionally, Birch emphasized the significance of prior rulings by a Second Circuit court, which suggested that evidence indicated Cocchia was coached to make false accusations against him.
Birch summarized that the appellate court had previously established that there was enough evidence to support a jury’s conclusion regarding the detective’s actions. He contended that Judge Bolden is therefore unable to reverse the jury’s verdict under existing legal precedents that prohibit trial courts from contradicting appellate findings on evidentiary sufficiency.
The town’s request to dismiss Birch’s $5.7 million award is further complicated by Birch’s recent settlement with the state of Connecticut, which he argued should not affect the federal case. He insisted that this settlement was not an official state claims award and therefore does not invoke the municipal offset provision which would permit local governments to reduce judgments based on state-paid claims.
Last month, New Milford filed a motion asking the court to either grant a judgment in its favor or negate Birch’s verdict entirely, asserting that the initial testimony from Cocchia had been reliable. The town maintained that the conditions surrounding the trial failed to support allegations of evidence fabrication.
Birch’s conviction in 1989 stemmed from the claim that he and an associate murdered Carr in a botched burglary. His attorneys argued that the initial evidence against him was flimsy, noting that the only connection to the crime was a witness mentioning a suspicious vehicle at the scene, and the actual physical evidence did not link Birch or his associate to the murder.
In 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court granted Birch and his co-defendant, Shawn Henning, habeas corpus petitions, thereby allowing them to avoid retrial. Birched ultimately prevailed in federal court, with the jury acknowledging law enforcement negligence while dismissing related civil rights claims against the town.
Since the trial’s conclusion, Judge Bolden increased Birch’s award to nearly $7.7 million, adding interest largely due to the town’s refusal of a prior settlement offer. Attorneys from both sides have yet to respond to requests for comment following the latest legal developments.
Birch is represented by a team from Kaufman Lieb Lebowitz & Frick LLP and Kirschbaum Law Group LLC. New Milford and the estate of Shortt are defended by legal experts from Hassett & George PC. The case is registered as Birch v. New Milford et al., under the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.