Marshall v. Randall, No. 12-2479 (2d Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendants appealed the district court's judgment of liability after a jury found them liable for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and violation of plaintiff's right to a fair trial. The court concluded that jury instructions adequately reflected the holding in Rehberg v. Paulk and mitigated the prejudicial impact of the opening and closing statements; the district court's instruction referencing the favorable termination of the prosecution without further elaboration was not a basis for reversal or a new trial; and the district court's exclusion of recognition evidence did not merit a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.