## Facts

- William C. Hygh visited Deborah Moore’s home in Catskill, New York, argued with her, and left the house.
- Outside, Hygh removed a propane tank attached to the house and put it on the ground; Moore had her daughter call police.
- Officer William Jacobs responded and engaged in a heated exchange with Hygh that became a shoving match; Jacobs then placed Hygh under arrest.
- Hygh alleged that, while bending to pick up his jacket after being told he was under arrest, Jacobs struck him in the face, fracturing his cheekbones and requiring plastic surgery.
- Jacobs claimed he struck Hygh in self-defense after being shoved and that he was holding a flashlight because it was dark.
- A surgeon testified Hygh’s injuries were consistent with being caused by a blunt instrument.
- Hygh sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution.
- A jury found Jacobs liable on all three claims and awarded compensatory and punitive damages; the district court reduced malicious prosecution damages to nominal damages and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- Jacobs appealed (challenging liability, damages, and evidentiary rulings); Hygh cross-appealed (seeking reinstatement of the jury’s malicious prosecution damages).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by allowing a police-practices expert to offer opinions that amounted to legal conclusions (including characterizing the force as “deadly physical force” and “not justified” under New York law).
2. Whether any evidentiary error regarding expert legal-conclusion testimony required a new trial on the excessive force claim.
3. Whether the record supported liability and damages for false arrest and malicious prosecution.
4. Whether the attorney’s fee award required reconsideration in light of any changes to Hygh’s success on the merits.

## Decision

- The court held it was error to admit expert testimony that used legally loaded terms and effectively instructed the jury on the governing law, but the error did not warrant reversal of the excessive force verdict.
- The court affirmed liability and compensatory and punitive damages on the excessive force claim.
- The court vacated the false arrest damages award and remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial on false arrest damages.
- The court reversed the judgment of liability for malicious prosecution.
- The court remanded the attorney’s fee award for reconsideration consistent with the modified results.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony may assist the jury by explaining police practices, training, and risks, but it may not state legal conclusions or tell the jury what outcome to reach.
- Expert use of terms with specialized legal meaning (e.g., “deadly physical force,” “unreasonable,” “excessive,” “justified” under statutory standards) is improper when it substitutes the expert’s legal judgment for the court’s instructions and the jury’s role.
- Admission of improper expert legal-conclusion testimony can be harmless when independent evidence supports the verdict and the jury is properly instructed on the applicable legal standards.
- When appellate disposition changes the plaintiff’s degree of success, a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 may require reconsideration.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit drew a firm boundary between permissible police-practices expertise and impermissible legal-conclusion testimony, affirmed the excessive force judgment despite evidentiary error deemed harmless, reversed malicious prosecution liability, remanded for a new trial on false arrest damages, and sent attorney’s fees back for recalculation in light of the altered outcome.


Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359 (2d Cir. 1992)