The judge raised concerns about a 'scream test' that angered local residents
A federal judge has ordered lawyers representing a former inmate to deliver in-person apologies after they broadcast a loud recording of a screaming woman in a South Philadelphia neighbourhood.
The ABA Journal reported that the incident, which occurred early in the morning on September 23, aimed to demonstrate a point in a lawsuit but ended up unsettling local residents.
US district judge John F Murphy of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that written apologies must be mailed to affected residents, and at least one lawyer must go door to door to apologize to those living closest to the source of the disturbance.
The broadcast, which played for over an hour starting at 5:30 in the morning, reached a volume of 122 decibels—equivalent to an ambulance siren or a chainsaw. “That volume is somewhere on the border between uncomfortable and painful,” Judge Murphy said. He expressed concerns over the lack of communication with the local community about the test, which caused residents to react with confusion and anger.
The case involves a lawsuit filed by former inmate Termaine Hicks, who alleged that Philadelphia police officers framed him for rape in 2001. Hicks claimed he was responding to a woman’s screams for help when police arrived, shot him, and planted a gun to implicate him. Hicks served 19 years in prison before his conviction was vacated in 2020. The “scream test” was intended to show that Hicks could have plausibly heard a woman’s cries from two blocks away, as he asserted.
Judge Murphy noted that lawyers for Hicks assumed that the opposing counsel would coordinate with the police and notify the community about the planned test. However, it was clear that no direct warning was given to residents or the court. “No one provided community members with notice of the scream test,” Murphy wrote, adding that the situation escalated quickly, with some residents confronting the acoustics expert, including one man wielding a baseball bat.
Judge Murphy acknowledged that residents were upset and called the lawyers’ lack of consideration a failure of “forethought and sensitive judgment.” He expressed concern that the incident risked damaging the community’s trust in the legal system that Hicks is relying on for justice.
Despite the disruption, Judge Murphy declined to impose a harsh sanction, such as excluding the “scream test” evidence from the case. He cited the lack of malicious intent by the lawyers, the absence of clear prejudice to the defendants, and the risk of penalizing the plaintiff’s case while benefiting the defence counsel, who was aware of the test.
Emma Freudenberger of the law firm Neufeld Scheck Brustin Hoffmann & Freudenberger accepted personal responsibility for the incident, although the court’s order permits any lawyer for the plaintiffs to deliver in-person apologies. The plaintiff was also represented by the firm Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin.
