Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03772/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-03772-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

John Frederic Garmon,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Peralta Community College District,

et al., 

 Defendant(s).

_____________________________/

No. C 04-3772 WDB

COURT'S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

IMPANELING A CIVIL JURY

***** Have enough copies of the standard background voir dire

questions so that each person in the venire will have one.

***** Have pencils for each person in the venire.

Give counsel alphabetical list of jurors. Court has both the

alphabetical list and a randomized list – the latter is not disclosed to the

lawyers but is used by the court to call jurors into the jury box (in

numerical order as the names have been randomly listed).

1. Welcome and thank the entire venire. 

2. Courtroom deputy calls the roll.

3. Introduce myself and my staff for this trial:

Law clerks: Michelle Sicula and Sarah Weinstein 

 

Courtroom deputy: Ivy Garcia 

Court reporter(s): Raynee Mercado

4. This morning we will be selecting a jury for a civil lawsuit, not for

a criminal case.

We anticipate that it will take about five days to complete the trial of

this case. 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

3

5. Courtroom deputy administers oath to all people in venire.

6. Courtroom deputy calls first fourteen jurors on randomized list

into the jury box. Remaining prospective jurors remain seated in

audience area (other side of gate, rail). 

7. Introduce the parties and their attorneys:

At this juncture I will introduce the parties and their lawyers.

Please pay careful attention because in a few minutes I will ask

whether, before today, any of you have had any contact with or

heard anything about any of them.

The plaintiff in this case is:

John Garmon, who served between 2002 and the 2004

academic year as the President of what was then known as

Vista Community College, one of four colleges in the

Peralta Community College District. 

The lawyers for Dr. Garmon are: 

Stephanie Wells and William Hopkins, who practice in

Tiburon. 

The defendants in this case are:

The Peralta Community College District and its Board

of Trustees, and 

Darryl Moore, who, at the pertinent times, was a Trustee

of the College District and is sued in his individual

capacity. 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

4

The lawyer representing the defendants is:

Larry Frierson, whose office is in Calistoga. 

Explain the Purposes and Mechanics of the Jury Selection Process

There are two primary purposes of the jury selection process in

which we will engage today:

the first is to make sure that none of the jurors who sit in this

case is biased or prejudiced against any party or, 

before today, had any personal knowledge of the factual

matters that this case involves. 

the second is to give the parties an opportunity to get the kind of

balance or mix of perspectives and backgrounds in the jury

that they feel is best suited to the case.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 4 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

5

Explain the mechanics of the jury selection process:

First, I will ask all the prospective jurors some general questions.

Then each of the 14 people in the jury box will answer, aloud, each of

the written questions posed on the sheet of paper we have given each

of you. 

After these people have addressed the questions on this sheet of paper,

I will ask them some additional questions that will be more focused on

matters relating to the case at hand. 

While I am asking these questions of the group of 14 jurors who are in

the jury box, all the other prospective jurors should pay careful

attention to the questions and should make a note (e.g., on the back of

the sheet we have given you that has the general background

questions) of any question to which you would answer "yes". 

It is very likely that some of you, perhaps all of you, will be

asked, one at a time, to replace prospective jurors who are now

seated in the jury box but who are excused for one reason or

another. When one of you is called to replace a juror who has

been excused, I will want to know if you would answer "yes" to

any of the questions I have asked of the group in the jury box. 

As we move through this process I may excuse some prospective

jurors "for cause," e.g., because they had personal knowledge of

important matters that are part of this case before they came here

today. 

Each prospective juror who is excused for cause will be replaced by

one of the people outside the jury box. When such a replacement

occurs, we will ask the new prospective juror to provide answers,

orally, to the background questions on the sheet you have been

provided. 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 5 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

6

Then we will ask the new person whether he or she would answer

"yes" to any of the questions that I have thus far posed. If so, we will

identify the questions and ask for some follow-up information.

Our goal at the close of this part of the jury selection process is to have

14 prospective jurors seated in the jury box who are not excusable for

cause. 

After we have 14 jurors in the jury box who are not excusable for

cause, the law permits each side to exercise what are called

"peremptory challenges," meaning that each side may excuse up to

three prospective jurors. 

When parties excuse prospective jurors in this process it is not

because of any personal dislike or distrust, but in order to get a

final jury panel that has the kind of balance and mix that the

parties feel is appropriate for this case.

The parties will exercise these peremptory challenges confidentially

and one at a time by passing a list of the 14 prospective jurors who are

seated in the jury box back and forth until each side has used all the

challenges it chooses to use. [plaintiff exercises first challenge, then

defendant, then back to plaintiff, etc.]

After this process has been completed, the remaining 8 jurors will

constitute the jury for this trial. In the event that more than 8 jurors

remain, the 8 who have been assigned the lowest numbers will serve.

The others will be excused. 

We will not have any "alternate jurors." 

This means that all 8 of the people who comprise the jury will hear the

evidence and arguments and will participate fully in the deliberations

and vote on the verdicts. 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 6 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

7

In federal court, a verdict must be unanimous.

General admonition about listening to and answering the questions

posed during the voir dire process:

Listen carefully to each question I pose.

When deciding what your answer is, work hard to be honest with

yourself. 

Do not offer an answer simply because you think it is what I

want to hear. 

Do not try to guess what the "right" answer is, or what the

"politically correct" answer is. 

There is no such thing, in this court, as a "politically

correct" answer, and the only ‘right’ answers are those that

are thoughtfully truthful.

GENERALLY WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT

At this point I would like to give you some information about this

case. 

The purpose of providing this information at this juncture is to

enable you to determine whether, before coming here this morning,

you acquired any information about the matters in dispute here. 

This brief description is not evidence and is not part of the formal

instructions that I will give later.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 7 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

8

The plaintiff in this case, John Garmon, served as the President

of Vista Community College, one of the four colleges in the Peralta

Community College District, between 2002 and 2004. 

In 2004, the Board of Trustees of the Peralta Community College

District, acting on the recommendation of the District’s Chancellor,

Elihu Harris, decided not to renew Dr. Garmon’s contract to serve as

President of Vista College. 

Given the Board’s decision to select a new President, Dr. Garmon

would have been permitted to remain in the District as a teacher, but

at a much lower salary. 

After the Board had made its decision, a newspaper reporter for

the Berkeley Daily Planet, Matthew Artz, spoke by phone with Dr.

Garmon about the situation. The reporter also spoke with Darryl

Moore, one of the Trustees. After these conversations, the reporter

(Mr. Artz) wrote a story for the paper that set forth the different views

on the matter that were held by Dr. Garmon and Mr. Moore. 

In the lawsuit that Dr. Garmon has filed he contends that his race

(Caucasian) and his gender (male) were motivating factors in the

District’s decision not to renew his contract as the President of Vista

Community College. 

In addition, Dr. Garmon contends that during his tenure as

President he complained that the District had made some employment

decisions based on race – and that a desire to retaliate against him for

voicing these concerns also was a motivating factor in the District’s

decision not to renew his contract as President. 

Dr. Garmon further contends that he was defamed by statements

attributed to Mr. Moore in the newspaper article that was published

about the decision not to renew Dr. Garmon’s contract as President.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 8 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

9

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 9 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

10

GENERIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE

VENIRE

1. Do any of you have any serious health or hearing problems that

would prevent you from serving?

2. Do any of you not understand or read English?

3. Before today, have any of you had any contact with or heard

anything about any of the parties or lawyers in this case?

4. Before today, have any of you had any contact with or heard

anything about me or any members of the court staff I have

introduced? 

5. Do any of you have any personal knowledge of any of the matters

that are the subject of this case?

6. Before today, had any of you heard anything about the dispute

between these parties or about the events out of which it has arisen?

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 10 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

11

PRIOR CONTACT WITHORKNOWLEDGE OFPOTENTIAL

WITNESSES

[ask these questions of all the members of the venire]

At this juncture I will read to you a list of the people from whom

testimony might be presented (either live or by deposition) during the

trial. 

We are not certain that all these people will testify -- but I need to err

on the side of caution and include all of them in the list. 

Please listen carefully to each name. 

If you hear the name of any person with whom you have had any

contact, or about whom you have heard anything, please raise

your hand.

[READ NAMES OF POSSIBLE WITNESSES]

1. Elihu Harris, Chancellor of Peralta Community College District 

2. Barbara A. Beno, former President of Vista Community College

3. Dr. Katherine Kocel, member of the Vista Community College

Faculty Senate

4. Ron Temple, former Chancellor of the Peralta Community College

District

5. Evelyn Wesley, President of Merritt College

6. Cecelia Cervantes, President of Alameda College

7. Odel Johnson, President of Laney College

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 11 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

12

8. Lynn Baranco, former President of the Board of Trustees of the

Peralta Community College District

9. Matthew Artz, formerly a reporter for the Berkeley Daily Planet

10. Marilyn Montague, a representative of the Peralta Chapter of SEIU

Local 790

11. Karen Carraway, English tutor for students at Vista Community

College

12. Trudy Largent, Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources,

Peralta Community College District

13. James Garrett, formerly a dean at Vista Community College

14. Virginia Durran, member of the office staff at Vista Community

College

15. Alona Clifton, former member of the Board of Trustees of the

Peralta Community College District

16. William Riley, a member of the Board of Trustees of the Peralta

Community College District at the time the Board decided not to

renew Dr. Garmon’s contract 

17. Mike Baldanelli, Risk Manager at Vista Community College

18. Diane Piper – former employee of the District

19. Venesse Metcalf, Director of Human Resources for Yosimitea

Junior College District 

20. Linda Handy, member of the Board of Trustees of the Peralta

Community College District 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 12 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

13

21. Dr. Amy Henderson, economic analyst

22. Dr. Paul Miller 

______________________________________________

23. Susan Duncan, former member of the Board of Trustees of the

Peralta Community College District

24. Joseph Bielanski, member of the faculty at Vista Community

College

25. Joan Beresin, member of the faculty at Vista Community College

26. Shirley Fogarino, assistant to the President of Vista Community

College

27. Judy Walter, President of Vista Community College

[Follow-up questions if any prospective juror indicates that he/she

knows or has heard of any of the witnesses: 

What are the circumstances under which you came to know,

know about, or have contact with this person [witness]?

What do you know about the person?

Is there any reason you would ascribe either more or less

credibility to testimony this person might give than to testimony

from any other witness who might be called in this case? 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 13 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

14

Does your prior knowledge of or contact with this witness cause

you to question your capacity to decide this case in a fair and

impartial manner?

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 14 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

15

[Shift focus to the 14 people in the jury box] 

HAVE EACH OF THESE 14 PROSPECTIVE JURORS ANSWER ALOUD

THEGENERAL BACKGROUND QUESTIONSONTHESHEETTHATHAS

BEEN HANDED OUT.

1. Please state your name:

2. Please tell us what city you live in:

a. How long have you lived there:

b. Where did you live before:

3. What is your current occupation:

a. How long have you been so employed:

b. What are your previous occupations, if any:

4. Please give us the following information about your family:

a. Are you married or do you have a domestic partner:

1. If so, what is your spouse's or partner’s current

occupation and by whom is

he/she employed?

b. Do you have any children?

If so:

1. How many?

2. What ages?

3. What are their occupations, if any?

5. Did you ever serve in the military or the armed forces reserves?

6. Please give the names of any organizations of which you are a

member.

[Ask the following questions only of the 14 prospective jurors]

If any of you would answer yes to any of these questions, please raise

your hand.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 15 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

16

1. Before today, had any of you met or heard of any of the other

prospective jurors who are sitting in the jury box now?

 2. During the past five years, have any of you served on a jury?

A. Was it a civil or a criminal case?

B. If civil, what, in general, was the nature of the plaintiff's

claim?

C. Without telling me the outcome, or who won, please tell me

whether or not the jury was able, in the end, to reach a verdict.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 16 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

17

There is a substantial difference between the burden of proof in a

criminal trial and the burdens of proof that may apply in civil trials.

In a criminal trial, the prosecution fails unless it establishes all

the essential facts beyond a reasonable doubt. That demanding

standard never applies in a civil case. 

In civil cases, as this is, there are two different potentially

applicable standards, one of which is called “preponderance of

the evidence” and the other is called “clear and convincing

evidence.” 

The “preponderance of the evidence” standard applies to most of

the factual issues that arise during civil trials.

To satisfy this standard, the proponent of a factual assertion

must prove that the fact is more likely true than not true. 

I will give instructions about both of the standards that could

apply to factual issues in civil cases later. 

For now, it is important only that you understand that both of the

standards that could apply in civil cases are less demanding (on

the proponent of a factual assertion) than the standard that the

law imposes on the government in a criminal trial. 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 17 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

18

Question for the prospective jurors in the box: Of those among

you who have served on juries before, is there any one of you

who would not be able to ignore what you were told about the

law in other cases as you sit in this trial -- and to base your

deliberations in this case solely on the law as I instruct you in it

and on the evidence that I admit? 

3. Have any of you ever been a party (either as a plaintiff or as a

defendant) to any lawsuit, civil or criminal?

If so, were you a plaintiff or a defendant?

What was the nature of the case?

Is there anything about that experience that would compromise

your ability to decide the matters in issue in this case fairly and

impartially, solely on the basis of the evidence I admit during this

trial and the law as I instruct you in it?

4. Has anyone in your immediate family ever been a party to a

lawsuit, civil or criminal?

5. Have any of you ever given testimony in any kind of trial?

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 18 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

19

6. Have you, or anyone in your immediate family, attended law

school or had any other training in the law? 

Have you received any training or instruction in issues related to

discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in employment or

work-related settings? 

If so, will you put whatever knowledge of the law you may have

acquired before today out of your mind during this trial, and will

you promise to apply only those legal principles in which I

instruct you, and to construe them during your deliberations only

as I explain them? 

7. Have you, or anyone in your immediate family, had any work

experience in the law, in any court, in a law firm, or in a law-related

business?

8. Do any of you believe that a person’s race or national origin

makes it more or less likely that the person is telling the truth? 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 19 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

20

9. Do any of you not understand that being fair and impartial as a

juror means, among other things: 

not bringing any biases or preconceptions to your work, 

but, instead, approaching at the outset the testimony of each

witness and the arguments of each lawyer on exactly the same

terms, 

so that you do not tend to credit or discredit anyone simply

because of their status, or what work they do, or where they were

born, or how they speak.

10. Do any of you not understand that in legal theory a person of any

race could be the victim of discrimination based on race? 

11. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, ever

been employed by or done any work for the Peralta Community

College District or any of its colleges or facilities?

12. Have any of you ever been employed by or done any work for any

college or any institution of higher learning? 

13. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, served

as a member of a board of trustees or board of directors of any

educational institution?

14. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, ever

attended any college that is part of the Peralta Community College

District?

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 20 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

21

15. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, ever

had any interaction with any college in the Peralta Community College

District or any employee of any of these colleges? 

16. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, been

terminated for cause or demoted from any job, i.e., terminated or

demoted involuntarily and not simply because of a reduction in force

or a reorganization by your employer?

If so, do you believe you were terminated unfairly?

What did the unfairness consist of? 

17. Have any of you ever participated in a decision to terminate

anyone’s employment? 

18. Have any of you, any member of your immediate family, or any

co-worker or close friend, been a victim in the workplace of

discrimination based on race or gender?

19. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, been

the victim of any adverse treatment or retaliation by an employer

because of views you expressed or tried to express? 

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 21 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

22

20. Have any of you, or any member of your immediate family, been

publicly defamed or slandered? 

21. Has a former employer done anything with respect to any of you,

or any member of your immediate family, to interfere with your efforts

to get a job, or done anything to make it more difficult for you to get

or keep a job? 

Final, catch-all question:

22. Is there any reason, 

arising out of any matter about which I have not asked any questions

here today, 

that any of you would not be able to serve fairly and impartially as

a juror in this case?

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 22 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

23

If I excuse any prospective jurors for cause, replace them [with the

juror next in order on the court’s randomized list] and have the

replacement jurors begin by answeringaloud the background questions

on sheets we have handed out. 

Then ask the replacement juror if he/she would have answered

"yes" to any of the questions posed to jurors in the box.

If so, ask appropriate follow-up questions.

____________________________________________________

Once I am satisfied that the 14 jurors in the box appear to be

qualified to serve in this case, 

I ask counsel to approach the bench:

--- inquire if there is a need for additional questions, by the

court or by counsel.

—--- if not, or after such questions, ask counsel (in sidebar)

whether they move to exclude any prospective jurors for

cause.]

Any EXCUSALS FOR CAUSE MUST BE EXPLAINED ON

THE RECORD.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 23 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

24

Once there are 14 jurors in the box who are not subject to being

excused for cause, begin the peremptory challenge process. 

The peremptory challenge process:

Have the courtroom deputy prepare a fresh list of the 14 jurors,

then give it to plaintiff's counsel, who will (in private) exercise

the first peremptory challenge. Then have the deputy carry the

paper over to defense counsel, who will exercise their first

peremptory challenge. Continue this process until each side has

exhausted its three (3) peremptory challenges.

The jury consists of the first EIGHT (8) jurors, working up from

the lowest numbered juror, who remain after the peremptory

challenges have been exercised.

Thank and excuse remaining prospective jurors.

Clerk administers the final oath to the jurors who will hear the

evidence.

I give the "opening" instructions or, if we recess, the generic

instruction about conduct as jurors.

Case 4:04-cv-03772-WDB Document 87 Filed 04/19/06 Page 24 of 24