Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00877/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00877-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HUNG LAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 1 of 19
2

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1. DUTY TO DELIBERATE

When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your presiding 

juror. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak for you here in court.

You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do so. Your 

verdict must be unanimous.

Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have 

considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of 

your fellow jurors.

Do not hesitate to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. Do not 

come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right.

It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you 

can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief 

about the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 2 of 19
3

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2. COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note 

through the court security officer, signed by your presiding juror or by one or more members of 

the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed 

writing; I will communicate with any member of the jury on anything concerning the case only in 

writing, or here in open court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the parties before 

answering it, which may take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for 

the answer to any question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone—including me—how the 

jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have 

been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the court.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 3 of 19
4

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. BURDEN OF PROOF—PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

When a party has the burden of proof on any claim or affirmative defense by a preponderance of 

the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or affirmative 

defense is more probably true than not true.

You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented it.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 4 of 19
5

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

4. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and which 

testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of it. 

Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

1. the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to;

2. the witness’s memory;

3. the witness’s manner while testifying;

4. the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

5. whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;

6. the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence; and

7. any other factors that bear on believability.

The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses 

who testify about it.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 5 of 19
6

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

5. IMPEACHMENT EVIDENCE—WITNESS

The evidence that a witness testified differently on a prior occasion may be considered, along with 

all other evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe the witness and how much weight to give 

to the testimony of the witness and for no other purpose.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 6 of 19
7

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

6. EXPERT OPINION

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, were permitted to state opinions and the 

reasons for those opinions.

Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You may accept it or reject it, 

and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and 

experience, the reason given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the case.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 7 of 19
8

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

7. DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE

During the trial, materials have been shown to you to help explain testimony or other evidence in 

the case. Other materials have also been shown to you during the trial, but they have not been 

admitted into evidence. You will not be able to review them during your deliberations because 

they are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. You may, however, consider the testimony 

given in connection with those materials.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 8 of 19
9

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

8. SECTION 1983 CLAIM—INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION

The plaintiff, Hung Lam, brings a claim under the federal statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which 

provides that any person or persons who, under color of law, deprives another of any rights, 

privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States shall be liable to 

the injured party.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 9 of 19
10

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

9. SECTION 1983 CLAIM—ELEMENTS AND BURDEN OF PROOF

In order to prevail on his § 1983 claim against Officer Dondi West, Mr. Lam must prove each of 

the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Officer West acted under color of law; and

2. The acts of Officer West deprived Mr. Lam of his particular rights under the United States 

Constitution as explained in later instructions.

The parties have stipulated that Officer West acted under color of law.

If you find that Mr. Lam has proved each of these elements, and if you find that Mr. Lam has 

proved all the elements he is required to prove under Instructions 10 and 11, your verdict should 

be for Mr. Lam. If, on the other hand, Mr. Lam has failed to prove any one or more of these 

elements, your verdict should be for Officer West.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 10 of 19
11

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

10. PARTICULAR RIGHTS—FOURTH AMENDMENT—UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF 

PERSON—GENERALLY

As previously explained, Mr. Lam has the burden to prove that the acts of Officer West deprived 

Mr. Lam of particular rights under the United States Constitution. In this case, Mr. Lam alleges 

Officer West deprived him of his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution when she 

shot him.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a person has the right to be free from an unreasonable seizure of 

his person. In order to prove that Officer West deprived Mr. Lam of this Fourth Amendment 

right, Mr. Lam must prove the following additional elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Officer West seized Mr. Lam’s person;

2. In seizing Mr. Lam’s person, Officer West acted intentionally; and

3. The seizure was unreasonable.

The parties stipulate that Officer West seized Mr. Lam and that her actions were intentional.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 11 of 19
12

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

11. PARTICULAR RIGHTS—FOURTH AMENDMENT—UNREASONABLE SEIZURE OF 

PERSON—EXCESSIVE FORCE

In general, a seizure of a person is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if a police officer 

uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest or in defending herself. Thus, in order to prove an 

unreasonable seizure in this case, Mr. Lam must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

officer used excessive force when she shot him.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may only use such force as is “objectively 

reasonable” under all of the circumstances. In other words, you must judge the reasonableness of 

a particular use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and not with the 

20/20 vision of hindsight.

In determining whether Officer West used excessive force in this case, consider all of the 

circumstances known to her on the scene, including:

1. The severity of the crime or other circumstances to which Officer West was responding;

2. Whether Mr. Lam posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or to others;

3. Whether Mr. Lam was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight;

4. The amount of time and any changing circumstances during which Officer West had to 

determine the type and amount of force that appeared to be necessary;

5. The type and amount of force used;

6. The availability of alternative methods to subdue Mr. Lam;

7. Whether it was or should have been apparent to Officer West that Mr. Lam was 

emotionally disturbed; and

8. The relative culpability of Officer West and Mr. Lam.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 12 of 19
13

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

12. BATTERY BY A POLICE OFFICER

Mr. Lam claims that Officer West harmed him by using unreasonable force when she shot him. 

To establish this claim, Mr. Lam must prove all of the following:

1. That Officer West intentionally touched Mr. Lam or caused him to be touched;

2. That Officer West used unreasonable force in shooting Mr. Lam;

3. That Mr. Lam did not consent to the use of that force;

4. That Mr. Lam was harmed; and

5. That Officer West’s use of unreasonable force was a substantial factor in causing Mr. 

Lam’s harm.

The parties have stipulated that the shooting of Mr. Lam constituted a touching, that the touching 

was intentional, that Mr. Lam did not consent to the use of force and that he was harmed.

A police officer may use reasonable force to arrest or detain a person when he or she has 

reasonable cause to believe that that person has committed a crime. Even if the police officer is 

mistaken, a person being arrested or detained has a duty not to use force to resist the police officer 

unless the police officer is using unreasonable force.

In deciding whether Officer West used unreasonable force, you must determine the amount of 

force that would have appeared reasonable to a police officer in Officer West’s position under the 

same or similar circumstances. You should consider, among other factors, the following:

1. The seriousness of the crime at issue;

2. Whether Mr. Lam reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the safety of Officer 

West or others; and

3. Whether Mr. Lam was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest.

A police officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest is not required to retreat or cease from 

his or her efforts because of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 13 of 19
14

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

13. BANE ACT—ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS (CIV. CODE § 52.1)

Mr. Lam claims that Officer West intentionally interfered with his civil rights by threats, 

intimidation or coercion. To establish this claim, Mr. Lam must prove all of the following:

1. That Officer West acted violently against Mr. Lam to prevent him from exercising his right 

under the United States and California Constitutions to be free from unreasonable searches 

and seizures and to be free from the use of excessive force;

2. That Mr. Lam was harmed; and

3. That Officer West’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Lam’s harm.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 14 of 19
15

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

14. NEGLIGENCE—ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS

Mr. Lam claims that he was harmed by Officer West’s negligence. To establish this claim, Mr. 

Lam must prove all of the following:

1. That Officer West was negligent;

2. That Mr. Lam was harmed; and

3. That Officer West’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Lam’s harm.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 15 of 19
16

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

15. NEGLIGENCE—BASIC STANDARD OF CARE

Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care to prevent harm to oneself or to others.

A person can be negligent by acting or by failing to act. A person is negligent if he or she does 

something that a reasonably careful person would not do in the same situation or fails to do 

something that a reasonably careful person would do in the same situation.

You must decide how a reasonably careful police officer would have acted in this situation.

Police officers have a duty to act reasonably when using deadly force. The reasonableness of an 

officer’s conduct is determined in light of the totality of circumstances.

Law enforcement personnel’s tactical conduct and decisions preceding the use of deadly force are 

relevant considerations under California law in determining whether the use of deadly force gives 

rise to negligence liability. Such liability can arise, for example, if the tactical conduct and 

decisions show, as part of the totality of circumstances, that the use of deadly force was 

unreasonable.

You may consider all of Officer West’s conduct in determining, under all of the circumstances, 

whether the shooting was negligent.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 16 of 19
17

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

16. NEGLIGENCE—COMPARATIVE FAULT OF PLAINTIFF

Officer West claims that Mr. Lam’s own negligence contributed to his harm. To succeed on this 

claim, Officer West must prove both of the following:

1. That Mr. Lam was negligent; and

2. That Mr. Lam’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing his harm.

If Officer West proves the above, Mr. Lam’s damages are reduced by your determination of the 

percentage of Mr. Lam’s responsibility. I will calculate the actual reduction.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 17 of 19
18

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

17. NEGLIGENCE—SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR

A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have 

contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the 

only cause of the harm.

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 18 of 19
19

Case No. 14-cv-00877-PSG

[PROPOSED] FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

18. RETURN OF VERDICT

A verdict form has been prepared for you. After you have reached unanimous agreement on a 

verdict, your presiding juror will fill in the form that has been given to you, sign and date it, and 

advise the court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00877-PSG Document 131 Filed 12/08/15 Page 19 of 19