Lawyers Who Conducted 'Scream Test' Must Apologize to Neighborhood

In a bizarre and unsettling turn of events, Philadelphians were jolted awake by the sound of a woman screaming early one Monday morning last month. It ended in lawyers getting sanctioned. How? Let’s dive into this tumultuous case.
A Rude Wake-up Call
Early on a Monday morning last month, the residents of a block in South Philly were abruptly awakened by the deeply disturbing sound of a woman screaming. These screams began at 5:30 a.m. and continued for over an hour. In case you’re holding your breath for some grisly descriptions of a terrible crime, you can exhale. No one was actually screaming.
The sounds were coming from an audio speaker rather than a real person. This unsettling noise was part of a litigation experiment conducted by Termaine Hicks, the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the City of Philadelphia and various police officers. The purpose of the experiment was to determine whether Hicks could have heard a rape victim's screams from two blocks away, as he claimed in his civil rights lawsuit.
Hicks’ Conviction
The underlying case stems from an incident in November 2001, when Hicks was walking home in South Philadelphia and heard a woman screaming. He alleged that he went to assist the woman, who had been sexually assaulted and badly beaten, and was screaming for help. He claimed that as he reached for his cell phone to call 911, police arrived and shot him three times in the back, mistakenly identifying him as the attacker.
The City maintained that Hicks committed the assault, despite Hicks not matching the description of the assailant and being unarmed. Hicks was eventually convicted of rape, aggravated assault, possessing an instrument of crime, and terroristic threats, resulting in a sentence of 25 years.
Thankfully, his exoneration came after the Philadelphia Conviction Integrity Unit and the Innocence Project filed a motion to vacate his conviction. Medical examiners confirmed that Hicks was shot from behind, contradicting the officers' claims. His conviction was vacated in December 2020, and he was released from prison – but only after 19 years in jail.
Hicks Sues the City
After his release, Hicks filed a civil rights lawsuit in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking damages after spending nearly two decades in prison and claiming police officers framed him for rape. Hicks’ attorneys claimed that the officers conspired to cover up their mistake; they falsely testified that Hicks had lunged at them with a gun, which was later revealed to be the off-duty weapon of another officer.
This past April, as part of that civil rights suit, the City conducted an acoustics test using a "siren chirp" to challenge Hicks's claim. In response, Hicks’ legal team conducted their own experiment last month, using a recorded loop of a woman screaming at 122 decibels. While the experiment might have served some meaningful purpose for Hicks’ case against the City, it had some pretty negative consequences for the fine folks of South Philly.
The speaker broadcasting the screams was positioned adjacent to a daycare center that opened at 6:30 a.m., causing significant distress to the community. Neighbors, who initially believed the screams were real, expressed their alarm and frustration through emails to the court and local news stations. Some residents were concerned about the potential for a dangerous situation, noting that firearm owners in the area might have reacted violently. The incident garnered media attention, with news outlets reporting on the community's reaction to the loud and distressing noise.
Court Makes Attorneys Apologize
Upon learning about the scream test and its connection to the case, the court ordered the City to explain the situation. The City clarified that it was the plaintiff who conducted the experiment. Consequently, the court ordered Hicks’ attorneys to show cause as to why any evidence obtained from the scream test should not be precluded and why they should not be required to apologize to the affected residents. Hicks’ lawyers admitted their error, took responsibility, and argued against the exclusion of the evidence obtained from the test.
U.S. District Judge John F. Murphy ultimately decided that precluding the evidence would unfairly penalize Hicks and benefit the City in their defense. Instead, the judge has ordered Hicks’ attorneys to write and mail formal apologies to the people living in homes or who own businesses in the affected area. At least one of those lawyers will have to visit the affected blocks to apologize to the community members affected.
Judge Murphy wrote: “At best, this lack of forethought and sensitive judgment resulted in a deeply disturbing and potentially dangerous situation. At worst, it undermined the local community’s confidence in the exact justice system that Mr. Hicks relies on for recourse.”
Related Resources:
- Advanced Performance Metrics Come to the Legal Profession (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Attorney Faces Sanctions for Citing Fake Cases from ChatGPT (FindLaw's Practice of Law)
- Rape Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)