Estate of Phillip White, et al. v. City of Vineland, et al. (3d Cir., 2024, non-precedential) - K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts
In 2015, Phillip White died while in police custody following an encounter with Vineland, New Jersey, police officers.
The Estate alleged that officers used excessive force during the arrest—force that included taking him to the ground, deploying a police K-9 dog, and other actions—and that those actions contributed to his death.
The defendants (City, officers, chief) maintained that the force used was lawful (or justified). The causation of death was unclear (the defense’s experts suggested death may have resulted from drug intoxication).
Officials have attributed his death in part to respiratory distress / respiratory arrest.
The defense contended that a toxic level of PCP (phencyclidine) in his system was a major contributing cause of death.
The autopsy report, as reported in some coverage, noted that injuries from the K9 bite were present but characterized as “superficial” (I.e., not necessarily the primary cause of death).
A grand jury later declined to indict the involved police officers. The prosecutors’ statement cited respiratory distress during transport as a critical factor.
Procedural History
The Estate brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA), among other federal and state claims.
On summary judgment, the district court allowed some claims to go forward (the § 1983 / NJCRA claims), while dismissing other state law claims (e.g., wrongful death or survivorship) under summary judgment.
The case proceeded to trial; after a ten-day trial, the jury returned verdicts in favor of the defendants on all claims.
The Estate appealed, raising issues about alleged improper statements by the City’s counsel, admission of evidence (e.g., autopsy report), and alleged errors in jury instructions.
Issues on Appeal
The Estate raised three principal grounds for relief:
The City’s counsel made improper comments during the trial that prejudiced the jury (for example, suggesting a verdict would be equivalent to a criminal “murder” finding or referencing prosecutor investigations).
That the jury was exposed to an autopsy report/testimony not properly admitted into evidence, or that expert witnesses improperly relied on it.
That the jury instructions on the excessive force / § 1983 claim were legally deficient or misleading.
Holding & Reasoning
The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, rejecting all of the Estate’s asserted grounds for a new trial.
On the improper comments claims, the appellate court found that:
Some statements referred to criminal liability or “murder.” Still, the Estate’s own counsel had earlier introduced references to “murder” in argument, so the Estate could not reasonably complain about defense counsel responding.
The district court instructed the jury to disregard references to investigations and focus on relevant evidence, which the Court found mitigated any potential prejudice.
The court found that no pervasive or prejudicial effect would justify a new trial.
On the autopsy report/evidence issue:
Although the parties had presented the autopsy report during opening arguments, it was ultimately never formally admitted, and the district court ruled that witnesses referencing it should be disregarded when appropriate.
The Third Circuit held that the Estate failed to show that the admission (or use) of the report or related testimony caused prejudice requiring a new trial, especially given the curative instructions given.
On the jury instructions:
The Court reviewed the instructions under an abuse-of-discretion standard and found they were adequate when taken as a whole to inform the jury of the relevant legal standards (e.g., for excessive force).
The Estate’s challenge did not show that the instructions as given misled the jury or distorted the legal elements.
Because none of the asserted errors were deemed reversible, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s result.
Significance & Observations
This case illustrates the difficulty of securing a new trial on appeal absent clear prejudice in trial conduct, evidence rulings, or jury instructions.
It underscores the importance of curative jury instructions and the deference appellate courts give to district courts in trial management.
The decision also shows that in contested use-of-force / custody death cases, dueling expert opinions and disputed facts often must be resolved by a jury rather than by summary judgment—or reversal on appeal.
Because the opinion is nonprecedential (per the Third Circuit’s internal rules), it is not binding precedent for future cases, though it may guide reasoning in similar fact patterns.
