A federal judge has refused to undo a $3 million jury verdict against the city of Philadelphia and several police officers in a wrongful conviction case, rejecting efforts by both sides to overturn the outcome and declining to sanction the plaintiff's lawyers.

In a memorandum Monday, U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy denied the city and officers' bid for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, threw out the city's motion seeking sanctions against the plaintiff's attorney Nick Brustin of Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger LLP, and rejected plaintiff Termaine Hicks' request for a new trial on damages.

"We cannot and will not substitute our judgment of the case for that of the jury," Judge Murphy wrote.

The city had asked Judge Murphy to revoke Brustin's permission to appear in the case, arguing he made "patently false accusations" during the trial, including claims that defense counsel misrepresented facts to the court, coached a witness to provide false testimony and acted with racial bias.

At a minimum, the city asked the court to formally reprimand Brustin for what it described as unprofessional conduct during the litigation.

Judge Murphy declined, concluding the cited incidents did not amount to "egregious" conduct that would justify sanctions and finding no evidence of bad faith.

Describing the tenor of the proceedings, Judge Murphy wrote that as the trial wore on, the courtroom played host to "near-daily Festivus celebrations, where everyone got to air their grievances 'for the sake of the record.'"

The judge also took issue with parts of the plaintiff's response to the sanctions request, describing Brustin's courtroom style as "kind of a lot" and calling it "provocative and exhausting."

He added, "The good legal work in this case overwhelms the mistakes and errors in judgment."

He also squarely rejected accusations raised during trial that the city's lawyers acted with racial bias, writing that those claims "must expressly be deemed baseless" and that there was "zero record whatsoever" supporting them.

Beyond the sanctions dispute, both sides had asked the court to disturb the verdict, which was returned after a two-and-a-half-week trial last summer.

"The jury in this case had a tough job," Judge Murphy wrote, explaining that jurors were asked to "listen to and watch witnesses answer questions about things that happened 25 years ago and decide who was telling the truth, who was misremembering, and who was lying."

Hicks sought a new trial limited to damages, arguing the $3 million award was legally inadequate for 19 years of wrongful imprisonment and likely reflected juror confusion about how to value harms such as loss of liberty and emotional suffering.

Judge Murphy said he properly instructed the jury on the types of damages it could award and found no reason to believe the panel misunderstood its role.

He also rejected the argument that the award was so low it required a new trial, writing that the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the jury and that the verdict did not "cry out to be overturned or shock our conscience."

The city and individual officers separately argued the liability findings were unsupported and that the trial was tainted by errors, including certain evidentiary rulings and what they characterized as improper courtroom conduct.

Judge Murphy rejected those arguments, as well, saying the record contained enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find in Hicks' favor and emphasizing that the court would not reweigh witness credibility after the fact.

The judge said he would delay entering final judgment while the court considers Hicks' request for $8.5 million in attorney fees and costs.

Hicks sued in 2022, alleging Philadelphia police fabricated evidence that led to his 2002 rape conviction and that he spent 19 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. The jury found several officers and the city liable and separately determined that it was more likely than not that Hicks did not commit the rape.

None of the counsel for either party responded to requests for comment Tuesday.

Hicks is represented by Amelia Green, Emma Freudenberger, Mary Katherine McCarthy, Nick Brustin, Katrina Christensen Rogachevsky and Peter Neufeld of Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger LLP, and Grace Harris, Susan M. Lin and Jonathan H. Feinberg of Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin LLP.

The defendants are represented by Danielle E. Walsh, Benjamin T. Jackal and Raymond Escobar of the Philadelphia Law Department, Samuel H. Ritterman, Aleena Y. Sorathia, Katelyn Mays and Joseph Zaffarese of Ahmad Zaffarese LLC, and John A. DeRose and Khari Griffin of Clark Hill PLC.

The case is Hicks v. City of Philadelphia et al., No. 22-cv-977, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

--Editing by Amy French.