Mirror, Mirror on the Wall
March 05, 2006
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.