In July 2007, plaintiff Jamal Trulove, 22, an aspiring rapper and actor, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for the murder of a friend, Seu Kuka, who was shot in the back at San Francisco’s Sunnydale public housing complex. The main evidence against him came from a neighbor, who testified that she saw Kuka chasing a young man and then saw another young man shoot Kuka at close range in the back. She failed to identify Trulove when shown his picture on the night of the homicide, but then, two days later, she offered a tentative identification of Trulove in a photographic line-up, in which Trulove was the only person in jail-issued orange and in which there were other people from the neighborhood that she knew. However, the neighbor claimed to have affirmed her identification after seeing Trulove three months later as a guest on the reality TV show “I Love New York 2.” A state appeals court overturned Trulove’s conviction in 2014, after finding that the prosecutor had made an unfounded claim to the jury, telling the jurors that the neighbor had been threatened and risked her life by coming forward. A second trial resulted in a jury acquittal in 2015. During the trial, Trulove’s forensic pathology and ballistics experts both testified that the scientific evidence, including the casings left at the scene and the autopsy findings, revealed that the eyewitness was entirely inaccurate about the events that transpired over seconds, in that she was not able to actually see the shooting at all. Trulove’s expert in eyewitness memory testified regarding suggestive identification procedures, as well as explaining how people confabulate, in that they either report remembering events that never occurred, or remember events as having occurred at an incorrect time or place. On March 11, 2015, Trulove was acquitted. Trulove brought a damages suit against several police officers involved in the criminal case and their employer, the city and county of San Francisco. Trulove accused the police officers of coercing the witness to identify him and alleged that the city and county of San Francisco was liable for the officers’ actions. He contended that he was maliciously prosecuted in violation of his civil rights. Trulove ultimately dismissed several of the police officers from the case. The matter continued against Inspectors Maureen D’Amico, Michael Johnson and Robert McMillan, and crime scene investigator John Evans, who was added as a defendant. All four officers have since retired. It was acknowledged that Evans had committed perjury during Trulove’s second criminal trial (the re-trial), but the civil jury was instructed that Evans had absolute immunity for his perjury. During the civil trial, Trulove claimed that D’Amico, Johnson, McMillan and Evans framed him for the murder of Kuka. Specifically, he contended that Johnson and D’Amico fabricated evidence against him and withheld evidence during the original criminal trial that might have helped him. Trulove claimed that he discovered evidence about improper police questioning after his first trial, when a juvenile came forward about being at the police station and witnessing the alleged improper questioning. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Johnson questioned the eyewitness shortly after the killing by pointing to a clipboard and asking, “Are you sure it wasn’t Jamal Trulove?” Counsel contended that although the witness replied that she didn’t know, D’Amico later showed the witness a single photo of Trulove, rather than the usual police practice of presenting photos of different people, and asked the witness to identify the perpetrator. Plaintiff’s counsel further contended that Johnson showed the same witness a suggestive photo array, consisting of Trulove and people who had already been discounted as being the shooter. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel argued that the officers were aware of another possible suspect, but that the suspect was never investigated. Defense counsel denied that the officers had coerced the witness and argued that the officers’ alleged misconduct was irrelevant because San Francisco prosecutors, using the evidence the officers presented, made an independent decision to charge Trulove. Accordingly, defense counsel argued that the officers’ actions had no effect on the criminal case., Trulove served 6.5 years in jail and a California state prison before being released. He also spent four years without visits from his family because he was held in a remote location. Trulove subsequently testified about his life in prison, and about the fear and humiliation he endured. Trulove is now 33 and works at an after-school program for at-risk children in San Francisco. The plaintiff’s damages expert, a psychologist, opined that Trulove suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Thus, Trulove sought recovery of damages for his past and future emotional distress.