Florida Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Taiwan Smart (Male, 20 Years)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Joseph Peter Klock Jr.;
Rasco Klcok Perez Nieto;
Coral Gables,
FL,
for
Taiwan Smart

Defendant(s):

City of Miami

Defense Attorney(s):

Henry J. Hunnefeld;
City of Miami Office of the City Attorney;
Miami,
FL,
for
City of Miami ■ Nicholas P. Basco;
Office of the City Attorney;
Miami,
FL,
for
City of Miami

On Nov. 14, 2009, Miami Police went to an apartment in the Little Haiti section of Miami after receiving calls that two men had been shot inside. Police found two teens dead inside the apartment, one shot to the back of the neck, the other in the top of the head, both at close range. Film crew from the television show "The First 48" shadowed and filmed Miami police detectives Sanchez and Cepero during the subsequent investigation of the murders. Plaintiff Taiwan Smart, 20, became the prime suspect. Smart, who was friends with the murder victims, had been inside the apartment but claimed he fled before the killings. Smart was arrested after 18 hours of interrogation by Sanchez and Cepero. Smart was charged with two counts of second-degree murder, possession of cocaine with intention to sell, possession of marijuana with intent to sell, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Smart was held without bond for four months before receiving a bond he was unable to post. Smart maintained he was innocent. Ultimately, all charges against him were nolle prossed, and Smart was released from jail nearly 20 months after his initial arrest. Smart sued the City of Miami, asserting claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Miami on the false arrest claim. Smart claimed that a few days after the shootings, he contacted the City of Miami Police Department and told the department he was in the apartment on the night of the murders, and that he ran from the apartment when the shooter approached a window in the apartment and started firing shots into the apartment. Smart claimed he had hidden for several days for fear that the shooter was coming after him, too. Smart maintained that he was innocent and requested the detectives to allow him to take a lie detector test, which he said they refused to administer. Smart alleged that during his incarceration, he learned that another inmate confessed to the murders. When the confession was brought to the state attorney’s attention, 19 months after his arrest, the state allowed Smart to take a lie detector test, which he passed. Smart alleged the City of Miami violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by allowing "The First 48" TV crew to film his home, interrogate and arrest, without getting his consent. The television show follows homicide detectives from across the country during the first few days of murder investigations, and it featured Miami police in 113 episodes. However, in 2013 the city cut ties with the show amid concerns about focusing primarily on violence in Miami’s African-American neighborhoods. Smart alleged detectives Sanchez and Cepero were more concerned with performing before the reality television cameras than searching for the true facts in the case. Smart alleged the two detectives interrogated him for 19 hours, then misrepresented the evidence against him. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the Miami detectives spent more time posing for TV shots and reenacting portions of what happened than actually investigating the crime. Plaintiff’s counsel noted that there was evidence from the beginning that proved the murders occurred after Smart fled the apartment in fear of his life. The City of Miami argued that there was probable cause to arrest Smart. The city also argued that Smart was not falsely imprisoned. The city contended that Smart admitted that he sold cocaine to a customer earlier in the day. In addition, defense counsel claimed Smart also stated that he was selling drugs to a customer at the window when someone with the customer turned the corner and started firing shots at the apartment. The defense claimed that Smart stated there were two volleys of shots fired, that he hit the floor during the first volley, waited a few seconds, and then made his way to the rear door that was previously locked, when more shots were fired. The city claimed Smart stated he ran a few blocks away, did not hear any shots fired after he left and was not close enough to have heard any shots. The city claimed that both Smart and the city stipulated that the kill shots to both victims came from the inside of the apartment. Defense counsel claimed that police officers concluded that because Smart was the only other person in the building at the time of the shooting, because he admitted that all shots were fired while he was present, and that the kill shots were fired from the interior, Smart was the shooter. The city additionally argued if the court were to accept Smart’s statement as truth, he admitted to two counts of third-degree felony murder. As to the civil rights claims, the city argued that there was no constitutional violation by the city and even if there was, there was no evidence of custom or policy.

Smart claimed he suffered emotional distress, humiliation, damage to his reputation as a result of his arrest and incarceration for suspected murder, which was broadcast on national television. The defense argued that Smart would have served time in jail for crimes he admitted committing relating to the incident other than the second-degree murder charge. The defense further argued that Smart’s life at present has substantially improved in all respects, compared to before his arrest for the charges in this case.

The jury found the City of Miami violated Smart’s constitutional rights by falsely imprisoning him. The jury determined that his damages totaled $860,200.

Taiwan Smart: $860,200 Personal Injury: emotional distress

Judge:

Marcia G. Cooke

Trial Length:

8
 days

Trial Deliberations:

3
 hours

This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to the reporter’s phone calls.