New Haven Independent

Jones made the declaration alongside supporters gathered in front of the site on Grand Avenue where her son Malik was shot by East Haven Officer Robert Flodquist one April day in 1997 as he sat, unarmed, in his car, after leading Flodquist on a cross-town car chase. The case became a cause celebre for activists concerned about police violence, as well as for defenders of the East Haven cops who felt wrongly accused of excessive force.

Jones appeared after what might have seemed like a setback in her continuing quest to bring attention to the case and combat police misconduct. Four years ago a federal jury awarded her the $2.5 million in punitive damages after finding that her son’s civil rights were violated. But this July 6 U.S. District Judge Alvin W. Thompson set aside the punitive damages; he had erred at the time of the jury’s decision by not realizing that in these cases only compensatory damages are usually allowed against a town. Hugh Keefe, the attorney representing East Haven, has claimed all along that a Supreme Court ruling shields a municipality from liability for punitive damages, but for exceptional cases. So it was no surprise when Judge Thompson vacated the multi-million dollar judgment.

But Thompson also ruled that Jones is entitled to a new trial to determine if she can be awarded compensatory damages.

Neither Jones nor her attorney, Joseph Moniz (pictured), budged from the declaration of victory when a reporter asked if they didn’t feel that the ruling was even a minor setback, since she won’t be collecting that punitive damage award.

None of the parties could have been surprised by that ruling. Some observers have expressed surprise that it took Judge Thompson four years to come to that conclusion.

Both Moniz and Jones urged the bevy of reporters present to read (“or at least skim”) the 109-page ruling (Click here to read it). They said that otherwise the media was likely to report the story as a defeat for Jones. The ruling, in fact, presents a strong case that the town, including the police chief at the time, showed “deliberate indifference” and failed to sanction or discipline East Haven Police Department officers for violating the Constitutional rights of African-Americans and other people of color. It declared that the town’s “policy or custom” created a hostile environment for racial minorities. (At the time of Jones’s killing, East Haven was almost all white, and still is largely, though less so. Its police force was all-white in 1997, and now has at least one person of color.)

The ruling stated over and over that “a reasonable jury could conclude” that Jones’s rights had been violated based on race. It reviewed not only the testimony of those who participated in or witnesses his killing, but several other incidents as well, in which East Haven cops allegedly discriminated against African-Americans. And a white man testified he was told by an East Haven officer who held a gun to his head, “You’re lucky you’re not a nigger because you’d be fucking dead.” (An officer involved in that incident denied at trial that any cops present had said that.)

Jones said she and her lawyer are still discussing whether to appeal the setting aside of the punitive damage award. Click here to listen to her describe her view of the ruling, and the “checking of the boxes” by the jury.

While waiting for Moniz to arrive, Bill Heinrichs (pictured), a supporter of Emma Jones and her family, spoke briefly about the tragedy to the entire family and what he wishes of those who carry guns. Click here to listen.

Keefe said after the ruling that Judge Thompson “did the right thing.” Jones and Moniz agreed, and invited Keefe to meet with them and agree to ask the judge to set a date for a hearing on compensatory damages.

Reached by phone after the press conference, Keefe called Jones and Moniz “spin masters.” He asked, “How do you spin the tossing of a $2.5 million favorable verdict as a victory?”

He said he’s reviewing the decision with East Haven officials and will decide in the next few days about whether to appeal the part of the ruling that allows Jones to ask for compensatory damages. The ruling indicates that the judge polled the jury when they declined to check the box for “nominal damages” and wrote “0” in the box for compensatory damages.

“The punitive award against the town was an illegal award,” he continued. “If you extract the illegal award, all the other issues have been decided, including the question of compensatory damages by the jury. So why are we having a second trial?” Click here to listen to the options he lays out.

Sign Up for Email AlertsEmail This Story

Your Email:

Recipient's Email:
Your Email:
Message (optional):

Your Name:
Your Email:
Message: