jury verdict in the northern district of oklahoma a couple of years ago a new trial should be granted in this matter along with we assignment to a different judge as the verdict reflects an unprecedented abuse of the process at all stages from pretrial trial jury instructions and closing argument the risk which all resulted in a verdict which can only be characterized as excess excessive and punitive the verdict should be set aside in a new trial granted the years below is set forth are a both numerous and substantive but for purposes of this presentation i will focus on an error a couple of areas that i think permeate and a lot of the other errors kind of pivot off of and then really in their own right demanded a trial in this matter i just ask you maybe this is a threshold question but i have a question about whether qualified immunity is still the case  challenging sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a supervisory liability claim against him in his individual capacity his sufficiency challenge to the represents ability of the element of  and the second element of qualifying here which is clearly established law is a legal question or to a point it's a legal question that has to be related to whether you've got a clearly established law evidence i don't believe that the issue of qualified immunity for stanley glands is an issue honestly i think this appeal will pivot off of or that is one thing that will be dispositive in this issue we're looking  section on that but i think a large portion of a research was directed at other matters i would like continue on that i want to get your notice here to articulate the issues  trial pretrial trial or closing argument that we assess the actions of the individual actors the subordinate officers in the case as to whether or not they committed any sort of constitutional violation for that looked like they were in force but people there were some are obviously were medical people and i watched them they're going on i mean in this state is available to the jersey i mean  identifiable people the tape doesn't reflect what's going on and i don't disagree that you can look at the tape but you can see in the individual's minds to understand what the mens rea it is for deliberate indifference and that's head little move except for some erratic movement of his arm to try to reach the water and said but that but the consideration is not just the actions but the mental state of these individual officers and when you have a case to try against jail staff as a conglomerate a collective against medical staff as a collective you're denying what's required under the law to look at the individual  collective group the jail staff did this the jail staff did that the medical staff did this medical stuff that you have to name the individual you have to identify them and make some attempt to understand what the imagery is for deliberat the people who were not sued the people who were on the video were not named defendants the people who are on the video lead they don't need to be to be in fairness they don't need to be but you must have been a part of their conduct you must specifically complain about their conduct and you must make some effort to litigate against them here they didn't do it was watching their conduct well i mean you know a picture is worth a thousand words and i bet a motion picture here you your honor and with all due respect to the people on the video there are the actions as you said of throwing in the food you don't know who that is they're not identified on the video the video is not the end all be all you have to understand not only from the jailer standpoint and their own plaintiff expert testified that none of the detention officers failed in their duty an obligation to provide or refer this individual to medical to make any sort of determination but you also have to understand what the medical staff to what they're seeing and what their belief is great that they wrongly believe that this man did it was not injured they won't win conclude that he has many days  to make that conclusion that will rock inclusion that wrong conclusion call it was over the course of three or four days as much as six maybe as much as six but you've got a condition that  affects the pretrial conference order that says that any individual we were without notice of who they were going after that the jury instructions and the conference or posit that anybody who we talk about a trial might provide a basis for the underlying liability and just you know is this is we have a jury why he did that basically yes and and so the sufficiency of the evidence standard goes there but it seems like you're making more of a procedural argument that maybe there should have been more specific jury instruction and pretrial or the special verdict in other words some identification of s appendix forty four seventy seven special verdict form has a list of the individuals that were named in the second amended complaint as a vitally mr williams civil rights is patterned off of garcia v city of salt lake with the idea that once again we need to make that sort of individual finding and one of the point about and i want to differentiate between city salt lake because it's an interesting case where there is no civil rights violation but you have in that there's a jury instruction that case that was not given in this case but allowed for liability alone on a policy practice or procedure and it started in salt lake the  on the policy itself no such jurisdiction was given in this case i want to pivot if i can just quickly if the complaint in the printer order doesn't give us notice as to who they're sending committed to constitutional violation if it makes it impossible to fill in the trial was a thirty day fiasco on anybody that they mentioned we might have as a defend closing argument in our brief this was a closing argument that really was unparalleled in my view for this errors just a quick question about that but i plan on going through the closing argument there were jackson's to some of the statements but there weren't instance not only did we have that fact that it occurred but we also had his former partner expressing negative opinions about the defense in this case the parties in the difference the  view of how negatively he viewed them and that is the the the bias in the prejudice that we were affected with with that we found out late and that was the basis for the refusal not the mere fact that  think that's the basis is the expression of bias and prejudice as it is told by his counsel the judge at the hearing where the last statement i remember just simply said there are only two people in that two people who know what my views were one would be appointed you know i'm sorry i don't have that effect in my head but it was probably about three to four years maybe three years before this trial going along we so it was after the incident before the trial case involving truly barbaric mistreatment of a human being unimaginable suffering and a little group had a case involving the evils of most immediate concern didn't make them part of the county so that their statements were missions of the county it was a it was argument that they were agents under eight zero eight only reason that they became witnesses to what happened to mr williams is their work as a trustee and the contract clearly provides that prosecutors sheriff's office remain in control and was to supervise the medical program and the personnel so that i think they evidence as a jury say it was dr washington notes the jury did not so are we supposed to know which of the individuals the jury committed the violation well i don't i don't know that that's it's a it's an element to multiple individuals i know others amounted to it's we're trying to scale the amount but in the course of doing so we're trying to review the record i mean is it eric pass to kind of piece through the rocker and say oh  know i find somebody dropping the underlying constitutional violation how's an appellate court on this record supposed to go about doing well we provide we provide that evidence and actually there's a there's a during the brief where i believe i have eighteen footnotes of eighteen specific individuals and i cite to the evidence of the record that supports the finding that each one of them  does it matter i don't know that i don't know that it matters when the when the evidence in this case is so strong of so many individuals that were deliberately indifferent to mr williams serious medical needs i it's it was from the moment that he broke his neck and began complaining of paralysis it was obvious that he needed immediate medical attention and everyone at that jail that payment of contact with them and knew that he was paralyzed at the opportunity and the duty to help them and nobody did anything to help they out they watched him slowly die for six days well how did and that person names names and identifies people and somebody else testifies about the next stage all the way down to we get to cell number want i mean how did you put on this all this evidence and most of that evidence your honor was put on actually through mr mccovey i mean has this report as we had a lot of criticisms of the sheriff's office obviously in this case one lee area we didn't do not criticize them as in the investigation that th evidence is a lie by the procedural record in this case to the extent that we received more evidence through the discovery process that that was violation the defendants themselves used broad collective type language such as the medical staff detention staff that type of language and their argument was essentially that we had not shown through our our response that any one at the jail committed an underlined by the nation of mr williams  we believe that the jury instruction was was an adequate based on the evidence that was that was gathered through or discovery and that was presented at trial because the defendants were limited in the underlying argued is that a a dollar for dollar set up which is what is applied by the oklahoma statute is inherently inconsistent with the statutory one of is a reasonable number for total damages and one of the parties has so why would it be for the purpose of moved to dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a we just actually they just filed a stipulation of dismissal the court denied that acknowledging that at this point in the procedural under the federal rules you had to have a stipulation of dismissal and they certainly did not have that of all parties which included the city of the law so what the time and the tall securely defendants we filed an objection to the dismissal to make sure that we preserve the issue and acknowledged at that time that there may be an issue of set off in my view the issue is set off does it become ripe until there is something to set off and once a verdict was put in place