A federal jury awarded $38 million to Stefon Morant, a Connecticut man who spent 21 years incarcerated for a 1990 double homicide he maintained he did not commit, after finding constitutional violations by the City of New Haven and former detectives Vincent Raucci and Vaughn Maher. The verdict followed approximately two-and-a-half days of deliberations after a trial litigated in U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala’s courtroom. Jurors concluded that investigatory misconduct contributed to Morant’s prosecution and conviction, including fabrication of evidence and suppression of information favorable to the defense. The jury also found the city liable under federal law based on proof described in the verdict as a “widespread practice” of suppressing exculpatory evidence.
Verdict and Liability Findings
The jury found the City of New Haven liable under federal civil rights law and returned individual-liability findings against former detectives Vincent Raucci and Vaughn Maher, while exonerating former detective Michael Sweeney. According to the verdict, Raucci was found liable on all counts submitted against him, including malicious prosecution, withholding favorable evidence, coercing witnesses, fabricating evidence, and conspiring to violate Morant’s rights. The jury also concluded Maher and Raucci were jointly liable for coercion, fabrication, and civil rights conspiracy. The city’s liability was tied to a finding that suppression of exculpatory material was not merely case-specific, but reflected a broader practice affecting criminal defendants.
At the time the verdict was announced, Morant and some of the former detectives were present in the courtroom, and the court cautioned that the case was unlikely to end with the jury’s decision. Judge Nagala told Morant that post-trial motions and appeals were likely, while also acknowledging the jury’s conclusion that Morant had been denied constitutional protections. The award adds to a series of high-dollar police-misconduct outcomes involving the city in recent years, and it places renewed focus on municipal exposure where plaintiffs prove not only individual wrongdoing but also a pattern-and-practice theory supporting city liability.
Underlying Homicide Case and Wrongful-Conviction Claims
Morant and Scott Lewis were prosecuted for the Oct. 11, 1990 killings of former alder Ricardo Turner and Turner’s partner, Lamont Fields, in an apartment on Howard Avenue in New Haven. Morant was convicted in 1994 and sentenced to 70 years in prison. He was ultimately released in 2015 through a sentence modification and later received a full pardon, and he also obtained a $5.84 million wrongful-conviction award from the state. In the civil case, Morant alleged he was framed and that investigators used coercion, fabricated recordings, and other means to build a case that could not be reconciled with exculpatory evidence.
A central factual dispute at trial concerned Morant’s claimed alibi and the integrity of witness statements used against him. Morant’s lawyers asserted he was not in Connecticut at the time of the double homicide and presented testimony placing him hundreds of miles away. The complaint also alleged that detectives coerced witnesses into providing false statements and created or manipulated audio recordings by coaching witnesses on what to say. These allegations supported the federal theories submitted to the jury, including malicious prosecution and due process claims premised on fabrication and suppression of favorable evidence.
Evidence of Misconduct and Trial Proof
The civil case developed over several years after Morant filed suit in 2022 against the city and multiple former detectives, and it relied on testimony intended to show both case-specific misconduct and broader practices. The prosecution narrative began to fracture as early as 1999 when Sweeney testified that he witnessed Raucci coercing a vulnerable teenage witness into providing false testimony. That account later contributed to prosecutorial support for Morant’s release in 2015, and it remained significant in the civil trial because it provided a concrete example of alleged coercion within the homicide investigation.
Additional trial evidence addressed the reliability and completeness of investigative recordings. A former FBI analyst reportedly examined Raucci’s interview tapes and testified that three contained at least 30 missing moments, a claim offered to suggest manipulation or concealment of what occurred during interrogations. The trial record also included testimony from multiple individuals—including the late Police Chief Nicholas Pastore, a retired FBI agent, and Raucci’s ex-wife—who said they suspected Raucci of using and dealing cocaine, and it referenced a March 2023 incident in which New Mexico police allegedly found drugs and a stolen motorcycle at Raucci’s residence. While such evidence does not itself establish constitutional violations, plaintiffs often use it to argue motive, opportunity, and credibility issues relevant to whether the investigation was conducted in good faith.
Post-Trial Motions, Appeal Plans, and Financial Exposure
Following the verdict, city officials indicated the case would proceed into post-trial litigation. In a written statement, Mayor Justin Elicker said the city will appeal and disputed the jury’s conclusion that the New Haven Police Department had a “widespread practice” of misconduct, contending instead that any unconstitutional actions were isolated and unsanctioned. The city also raised the question of who should bear financial responsibility for the judgment, with a spokesperson stating that the city’s position is that it is not responsible for indemnifying the individual defendants.
Morant’s counsel argued that the city is directly liable based on the jury’s acceptance of a pattern-and-practice theory connecting municipal conduct to the wrongful conviction; Morant was represented by Loevy + Loevy, according to court filings. The next phase is expected to include briefing on post-trial motions, appellate issues, and enforcement, all of which can affect timing and collectability. More broadly, the verdict illustrates how municipal exposure can expand when plaintiffs persuade jurors that investigative failures were not limited to a single prosecution, but reflected systemic suppression of favorable evidence—an issue that can shape policy reforms and training practices in law enforcement agencies.
