FIRST CIRCUIT UPHOLDS $100,000,000 AWARD AGAINST THE FBI

In 1965 Edward Deegan was killed by the mob in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Initially the police suspected a group of gangsters including Joseph Barboza, Jimmi Flemmi, Roy French, Joseph Martin, and Ronald Cassesso. But the police were unable to prove the case against them. Two years later Barboza, now an FBI snitch, pointed the finger at among others, Peter Limone, Sr., Enrico Tameleo, Louis Greco, Sr., and Joseph Salvati. With his help and the support of the FBI they were convicted.

Starting before the murder of Deegan, the FBI operated an illegal bug in the office of Raymond L. S. Patriarca. From the recording device, the FBI had strong information that Barboza was lying and that the defendants were not guilty. The tapes indicated that Patriarca, not Limone authorized the murder. Yet FBI agents continued to support Barboza and coached him on what to tell the police. One of the agents testified in support of Barboza credibility at the trial.

The defendants were convicted at the trial. Limone, Tameleo, and Greco were sentenced to death. The death sentence became a life in prison sentences after Georgia v. Furmaan. After the conviction the defendants continued to try to get information from the FBI proving their innocence. The FBI stonewalled them. But finally thirty years later the FBI provided the information. By then two of the defendants were dead, a third had been released and Limone was still in prison, but the convictions were reversed.

A civil suit was instituted under the Federal claims Torts Act. The court ordered payments of over $100,000,000 to the remaining defendants, their families and the estates of the deceased defendants as well as to their families. On appeal the appellate court upheld the award.

The trial court based the award on malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the malicious prosecution basis since their was no proof that the FBI instituted the prosecution but it had little trouble endorsing the emotional distress basis which required extreme and outrageous conduct without privilege causing severe emotional distress.

There was some dispute about the amount of the damages. The trial court award the defendants 1,000,000,000 for each year they were in custody. While the appellate court found the awards to be high it could not say that they shocked the conscience and therefore the appellate court upheld the trial court’s damage awards.