Summary
holding that, in a malicious prosecution case, out-of-court statements were not hearsay when they were offered to show what the police knew, which was necessary to determine whether there was probable cause at the time plaintiff was prosecuted
Summary of this case from Johnson v. StithOpinion
No. 09-2534.
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 11, 2010.
Filed: April 1, 2010.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania District Court, No. 2-06-cv-01325, District Judge: The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick.
Adrian J. Moody, Esq., Law Offices of Adrian J. Moody, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellant.
Armando Brigandi, Esq., Elise M. Bruhl, Esq., City of Philadelphia Law Department, District Attorney Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
Before: AMBRO, SMITH, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
JUDGMENT ORDER
In 1988, Alfredo Domenech and Ivan Serrano were convicted by a Philadelphia jury of murdering Juan Martinez. Although their convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, their petitions for state collateral relief succeeded, and a new trial was granted in 2005. After the Philadelphia District Attorney decided not to retry the case, Domenech and Serrano filed this civil rights action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. They alleged that the City of Philadelphia and various employees of the City's Police Department violated their constitutional rights by, inter alia, withholding exculpatory evidence and maliciously prosecuting them for murder. Alter discovery closed, the City defendants successfully moved for summary judgment. Domenech and Serrano appeal arguing that the District Court erred because it failed to apply the proper standard for ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
"We exercise plenary review over the District Court's grant of summary judgment" and "apply the same standard that the District Court should have applied." Shnman ex rel Shertzer v. Perm Manor Sch. Dist., 422 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). After a review of the briefs and the record, including the District Court's thorough Memorandum, we find no error in the District Court's application of Rule 56. Accordingly, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court entered April 23, 2009, be and the same is hereby AFFIRMED. All of the above in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Costs taxed against the Appellants.
/s/ P. Brooks Smith
U.S. Circuit Judge