Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02656/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02656-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. TUTTELMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER

ANTHONY LUISI, SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER

RONALD BAYS,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02656 WHA

COURT’S PROPOSED CHARGE TO THE JURY

[AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM]

Appended hereto are copies of the draft charge to the jury and special verdict form given

to both sides at NOON ON OCTOBER 31, 2006, for discussion with the Court at the charging

conference on NOVEMBER 1, 2006 AT 7:30 A.M. Counsel are reminded that all objections,

additions, or modifications must be made at the charging conference or else they shall be

deemed waived.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID M. TUTTELMAN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER

ANTHONY LUISI, SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICER

RONALD BAYS,

Defendants. /

No. C 02-02656 WHA

[DRAFT]

FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY

AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1.

Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence and arguments by counsel,

it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. A copy of these instructions will

be available in the jury room for you to consult as necessary.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts, you will

apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree

with it or not. You must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices

or sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You

will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of the case. In following my

instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore others; they are all

equally important. You must not read into these instructions or into anything the Court may

have said or done as suggesting what verdict you should return — that is a matter entirely up to

you. 

2.

The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of:

1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination,

regardless of who called the witness;

2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; 

3. The sworn testimony of witnesses in depositions, read into evidence; and

4. Any facts to which the lawyers have stipulated. You must treat any

stipulated facts as having been conclusively proved.

3.

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such

as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial

evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. By way of

example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may find from that

fact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a turned-on garden hose,

may explain the presence of water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the light of

reason, experience and common sense. You should consider both kinds of evidence. The law

makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. 

It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. You should base your decision

on all of the evidence regardless of which party presented it. 

4.

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the types of evidence I have described. 

Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I

will list them for you:

1. Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are

not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, closing

arguments and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it

is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the

lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.

2. A suggestion in a question by counsel or the Court is not evidence unless

it is adopted by the answer. A question by itself is not evidence. Consider it only

to the extent it is adopted by the answer. 

3. Objections by lawyers are not evidence. Lawyers have a duty to their

clients to consider objecting when they believe a question is improper under the

rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by any question, objection or the

Court’s ruling on it. 

4. Testimony or exhibits that have been excluded or stricken, or that you

have been instructed to disregard, are not evidence and must not be considered. 

In addition, some testimony and exhibits have been received only for a limited

purpose; where I have given a limiting instruction, you must follow it.

5. Anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in session

is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the

trial.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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.

IF THERE WERE CHARTS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE: Certain charts and summaries have

been received into evidence. Charts and summaries are only as good as the underlying

supporting material. You should, therefore, give them only such weight as you think the

underlying material deserves.

IF ANY CHARTS SHOWN JURY ARE NOT IN EVIDENCE, I.E., FOR “ILLUSTRATION

ONLY”: Certain charts and summaries have been shown to you in order to help explain the

facts disclosed by the books, records, and other documents which are in evidence in the case. 

They are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts. If they do not correctly reflect the facts

or figures shown by the evidence in the case, you should disregard these charts and summaries

and determine the facts from the underlying evidence.

6.

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. 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’ memory;

3. The witness’ manner while testifying;

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

5. Whether other evidence contradicted the witness’ testimony;

6. The reasonableness of the witness’ 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. Nor does it depend on which side called witnesses or produced evidence. 

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

7.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 5 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

You are not required to decide any issue according to the testimony of a number of

witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a smaller number or other

evidence, which is more convincing to you. The testimony of one witness worthy of belief is

sufficient to prove any fact. This does not mean that you are free to disregard the testimony of

any witness merely from caprice or prejudice, or from a desire to favor either side. It does

mean that you must not decide anything by simply counting the number of witnesses who have

testified on the opposing sides. The test is not the number of witnesses but the convincing force

of the evidence. 

8.

A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or by evidence

that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something or has failed to say or do

something that is inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony. If you believe any witness

has been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony of that witness such

credibility, if any, you think it deserves. 

9.

Discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between a witness’ testimony and that of other

witnesses do not necessarily mean that such witness should be discredited. Inability to recall

and innocent misrecollection are common. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction

sometimes will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter

or only to something trivial should be considered by you. 

However, a witness willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted

in others. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on

a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe that the probability of truth favors

his or her testimony in other particulars. 

10.

In determining what inferences to draw from evidence you may consider, among other

things, a party’s failure to explain or deny such evidence.

11.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 6 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

You have heard testimony from witnesses referred to as “expert witnesses.” These are

persons who, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the

reasons for their 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’ education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other

evidence in the case. If an expert witness was not present at the events in question, his or her

opinion is necessarily based on an assumed set of circumstances. In evaluating the opinion

during the trial, you should take into account the extent to which you do agree or do not agree

with the circumstances assumed by the expert witness. 

12.

You should decide the case as to each defendant separately and as to each defendant

separately. Unless otherwise stated, the instructions apply to all parties.

13.

In these instructions, I will often refer to a party’s “burden of proof.” Let me explain

what that means. When a party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the

evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably true

than not true. To put it differently, if you were to put the evidence favoring a plaintiff and the

evidence favoring a defendant on opposite sides of a scale, the party with the burden of proof on

the issue would have to make the scale tip somewhat toward its side. If the party fails to meet

this burden, then the party with the burden of proof loses on that issue. Preponderance of the

evidence basically means “more likely than not.” 

14.

On any claim, if you find that plaintiff carried his burden of proof as to each element of a

particular claim, your verdict should be for plaintiff on that claim. If you find that plaintiff did

not carry his burden of proof as to each element, you must find against plaintiff on that claim. 

This same principle also supplies to defendants on claims for which it has the burden of proof. 

15.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 7 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

I will now turn to the specifics of this case. Plaintiff David Tuttelman contends that his

federal civil rights were violated when Officers Ronald Bays and Anthony Luisi used excessive

force when they arrested him. He also contends that the officers subjected him to an unlawful

arrest under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff also seeks to recover from defendants for an

alleged violation of California law — namely, that the officers interfered with his right to free

speech by threatening or committing violent acts. In contrast, defendants argue that plaintiff was

lawfully arrested because he assaulted them and resisted arrest.

16. 

As you know, the events in this case occurred in 1998. Please do not speculate

concerning the reason for delay in bringing this case to trial. This case is not barred by any

statute of limitations.

17.

In this case you have heard evidence about the initial stop and about the pat-down search. 

As I have told you, no claim is made in this case that the initial stop of his vehicle was improper. 

Also, there is no issue for you to decide regarding whether it would have been proper to perform

a pat-down search on Mr. Tuttelman.

You have heard evidence concerning these events as background to the issues you do

have to decide. You do have to decide whether defendants Officers Luisi and Officer Bays used

excessive force against Mr. Tuttelman, whether they unlawfully arrested him, and whether they

interfered with his right to free speech by threatening or committing violent acts.

18.

You need not be concerned with or speculate regarding what happened during plaintiff’s

criminal prosecution. What happened in the criminal prosecution is not determinative of the

issues in this case and should not influence any of the decisions you make in this case.

19.

I will now give you the details on the law governing these claims. Plaintiff’s first claim

is alleged under a federal civil-rights act. Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code

allows individuals to sue for violations of rights protected under the United States Constitution. 

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 8 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

To establish this Section 1983 claim, plaintiff has the burden to prove all of the following

elements by a preponderance of the evidence against each defendant:

(1) the acts of each defendant were intentional;

(2) each defendant acted under color of state law; and

(3) the acts of the defendant caused the deprivation of the plaintiff’s Fourth

Amendment rights.

If you find that each of the elements on which plaintiff has the burden of proof has been

proven, your verdict should be for plaintiff. If, on the other hand, plaintiff has failed to prove

one or more of these elements, your verdict should be for defendant. 

20.

Each element will now be explained more fully. First, you must find that the acts of each

defendant were intentional. An act is intentional if it is done knowingly, that is if it is done

voluntarily and deliberately and not because of accident or negligence. An act may be

intentional even if the act was committed without malice or ill will.

21.

Second, acts are done under color of law when a person acts or purports to act in the

performance of official duties under any state, county, or municipal law, ordinance or regulation. 

The parties have stipulated that Officer Bays and Officer Luisi acted under color of law. 

22.

Third, plaintiff must show that defendants’ conduct “caused” plaintiff to be deprived of

his Fourth Amendment rights. The law defines cause in its own particular way. A cause of

injury is something that is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. 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

harm.

23. 

The Fourth Amendment, one of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights,

guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 9 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

searches and seizures.” Plaintiff claims that the defendants, by using excessive force in making

a lawful arrest, deprived plaintiff of the Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from

an unreasonable seizure.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement officer has the right to use such force

as is reasonably necessary under the circumstances to make a lawful arrest. An unreasonable

seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest. In

deciding whether excessive force was used, you should consider the totality of the circumstances

at the time. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged objectively from the

information available at the time from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather

than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.

Whether force is reasonably necessary or excessive is measured by the force a reasonable

and prudent law enforcement officer would use under the circumstances. Some of the things you

may want to consider in determining whether the defendants used excessive force are the

severity of the crime at issue, whether the plaintiff posed a reasonable threat to the safety of the

officers or others, and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting detention or attempting to

escape.

Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer need not use the least intrusive degree of

force possible in a given situation. He need only act within that range of conduct which we

identify as reasonable. Whether an officer hypothetically could have used less painful, less

injurious, or more effective force in executing an arrest is not the issue. The issue is whether the

force used was reasonable, viewing the facts from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the

scene.

24.

Whenever a citizen is stopped by a police officer, he or she has a right to inquire of the

officer why he or she is being stopped. On the other hand, if the person stopped becomes

belligerent, then the officers may take that fact into account when determining whether that

person presents a threat to officer security, taking into account all the facts and circumstances.

25. 

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 10 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff also claims that he was unlawfully arrested in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. A Fourth Amendment arrest occurs when a police officer, by means of physical

force or show of authority, restrains the liberty of a citizen in such a way that a reasonable

citizen would reasonably believe under the circumstances that he or she was not free to leave. 

Whether a person is placed under arrest depends upon all the surrounding circumstances,

including the extent that freedom of movement is curtailed and the degree and type of force or

authority used to effectuate the arrest.

26.

A warrantless arrest by a law enforcement officer is reasonable under the Fourth

Amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being

committed. 

Probable cause exists if, under the totality of the circumstances known to the arresting

officer, a prudent officer would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the

individual had committed a crime.

27. 

You have heard evidence that the charges on which Mr. Tuttelman were arrested were

reduced to a traffic infraction and that Mr. Tuttelman pled guilty to the infraction. This does not

mean that the more serious charges for which Mr. Tuttelman were arrested were unsupported by

probable cause. You have been allowed to hear evidence of these subsequent events in order to

place the story in its entire context and to avoid confusion. You should not speculate why the

district attorney made decision to reduce the charges. Whether or not the police had the

probable cause to make the arrest in question is a decision you have to make based on the

evidence presented at this trial.

28.

Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any police officer in the discharge

or attempt to discharge any duty of his office or employment, and who knows or reasonably

should know the other person is a police officer engaged in the performance of his duties, is

guilty of a violation of California Penal Code Section 148, subdivision (a)(1). A violation of this

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 11 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

statute is a misdemeanor. A police officer is discharging or attempting to discharge his duties if

he is lawfully detaining or attempting to detain a person for questioning or investigation. If you

find that plaintiff violated this statute or that the officers could reasonably have believed that

plaintiff violated it, you must find that defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff following

any such violation.

29.

Under California Penal Code Section 242, a battery is any willful and unlawful use of

force or violence upon the person of another. If you find that plaintiff violated this statute or that

the officers could reasonably have believed that plaintiff violated it, you must find that

defendants had probable cause to arrest plaintiff following any such violation.

30.

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 243, subdivisions (b) and (c), every person

who willfully and unlawfully uses any force or violence and inflicts injury upon the person of a

peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties, and who knows or reasonably should

know that the other person is a peace officer and is engaged in the performance of his duties, is

guilty of the crime of a violation of Penal Code section 243.

As used in this instruction, the words “force” and “violence” are synonymous and mean

the wrongful application of physical force against the person of another.

“Injury” means any physical injury which requires professional medical treatment. It is

the nature, extent, and seriousness of the purported injury that is determinative — not whether

the allegedly injured party sought medical treatment.

Violation of this section is established where:

(1) A person willfully and unlawfully applied physical force against the person of a

peace officer;

(2) At that time the peace officer was engaged in the performance of his duties;

(3) The person who applied the physical force knew or reasonably should have

known that the other person was (a) a peace officer, and (b) engaged in the

performance of his duties; and 

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 12 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

(4) Injury was inflicted on the peace officer.

If you find that plaintiff violated this statute or that the officers could reasonably have

believed that plaintiff violated it, you must find that defendants had probable cause to arrest

plaintiff following any such violation.

31. 

Plaintiff also makes a state-law claim. Plaintiff alleges that defendants Officer Bays and

Officer Luisi violated California Civil Code Section 52.1. Section 52.1 imposes liability on a

defendant who intentionally interferes with or attempts to interfere with a person’s civil rights by

threatening or committing violent acts. To establish this claim, plaintiff must prove all of the

following:

(1) That Officer Luisi or Officer Bays interfered with or attempted to interfere with

plaintiff’s First Amendment right to free speech by threatening or committing

violent acts;

(2) That Officer Luisi or Officer Bays injured plaintiff to prevent him from exercising

his right to free speech or retaliated against plaintiff for having exercised his right

to free speech;

(3) That plaintiff was harmed; and

(4) That the conduct of Officer Luisi or the conduct of Officer Bays was a substantial

factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.

If you find that each of these elements has been proved by plaintiff by a preponderance of

the evidence, your verdict should be for plaintiff on the California state-law claim. If, on the

other hand, plaintiff has failed to prove one or more of these elements, your verdict should be for

the defendants.

32. 

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “Congress shall make

no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The First Amendment protects a significant

amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. The First Amendment

guarantees an individual’s right to oppose or challenge police action verbally without thereby

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 13 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

risking arrest. The First Amendment, however, does not protect language that is likely to

produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public

inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. Police officers may resent having abusive language

directed at them, but they may not exercise their authority to punish individuals for conduct that

is protected by the First Amendment. 

33. 

That concludes the instructions on the issue of liability. Now I will discuss the issue of

damages. It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of damages. By

instructing you on damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party your verdict

should be rendered. The party seeking damages has the burden of proving damages by a

preponderance of the evidence. 

34.

You are not permitted to include speculative damages, which means compensation for

future loss or harm which, although possible, is conjectural or not reasonably certain. Your

award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture. 

However, if you determine that a party is entitled to recover, you should compensate a party for

the loss or harm caused by the injury in question which the evidence shows is reasonably certain

to be suffered in the future.

35.

If you award damages on multiple claims, you must also indicate a total to eliminate any

overlapping damages and to prevent double counting, as set forth in the special verdict form. 

36.

In determining the measure of damages, you should consider:

(1) The nature and extent of the injuries;

(2) The disability, or loss of enjoyment of life experienced and which with reasonable

probability will be experienced in the future; and

(3) The mental, physical, emotional pain and suffering experienced and which with

reasonable probability will be experienced in the future.

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 14 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

37.

The plaintiff has a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages. To mitigate means

to avoid or reduce damages. The defendant has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

evidence:

(1) that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate damages; and

(2) the amount by which damages would have been mitigated.

38.

The law which applies to this case authorizes an award of nominal damages. If you find

for the plaintiff but you find that the plaintiff has failed to prove damages as defined in these

instructions, you must award nominal damages. Nominal damages may not exceed one dollar.

39.

If you find for the plaintiff, you may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. 

The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant or defendants and to deter a

defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be awarded, and the

amount, by a preponderance of the evidence. You may award punitive damages only if you find

that a defendant’s conduct was malicious, or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. 

Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring

another. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights if, under the circumstances, it

reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety, rights, or if the defendant acts in the face

of a perceived risk that his actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under federal law.

If you find that punitive damages are appropriate, you must use reason in setting the

amount. Punitive damages, if any, should be in an amount sufficient to fulfill their purposes but

should not reflect bias, prejudice or sympathy toward any party. In considering punitive

damages, you may consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct and the

relationship of any award of punitive damages to any actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff.

Punitive damages may not be awarded against defendant City of San Jose. With respect

to the other defendants, you may impose punitive damages against one defendant and not the

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 15 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

other, or both, or against neither of them. You may awarded different amounts against different

defendants. Punitive damages may be awarded even if you award plaintiff only nominal, and not

compensatory, damages.

40.

“Malice” means conduct which was intended to cause injury to plaintiff or despicable

conduct which was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of

others. 

“Despicable conduct” is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable,

wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent

people. A person acts with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others when he or she is

aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and willfully and

deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. 

“Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust

hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. 

“Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit or concealment of a material fact

known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a

person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. 

41.

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

foreperson. 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 as to each claim and as to damages, if any, 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 be afraid 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

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 16 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and

effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.

I will give you a special verdict form to guide your deliberations.

42.

Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you

should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You

should not be overly influenced by the notes. When you go into the jury room, the Clerk will

bring in to you the trial exhibits received into evidence to be available for your deliberations. 

THE CLERK WILL ALSO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN INDEX TO THEM, ASSUMING THE LAWYERS

HAVE BEEN ABLE TO JOINTLY PREPARE THE INDEX. 

43.

As I noted before the trial began, when you retire to the jury room to deliberate, you will

have with you the following things: 

1. All of the exhibits received into evidence;

2. AN INDEX OF THE EXHIBITS IF THE LAWYERS ARE ABLE TO STIPULATE

AS TO ITS FORM;

3. A work copy of these jury instructions for each of you; 

4. A work copy of the verdict form for each of you; and

5. An official verdict form. 

When you recess at the end of a day, please place your work materials in the brown

envelope provided and cover up any easels with your work notes so that if my staff needs to go

into the jury room, they will not even inadvertently see any of your work in progress. 

44.

A United States Marshal will be outside the jury-room door during your deliberations. 

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

through the marshal, signed by your foreperson 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, and

I will respond to the jury concerning the case only in writing or here in open court. If you send

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 17 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

out a question, I will consult with the lawyers 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. 

45.

You have been required to be here each day from 7:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Now that you

are going to begin your deliberations, however, you are free to modify this schedule within

reason. For example, if you wish to continue deliberating in the afternoons after a reasonable

lunch break, that is fine. The Court does, however, recommend that you continue to start your

deliberations by 8:00 A.M. If you do not reach a verdict by the end of today, then you will

resume your deliberations tomorrow and thereafter.

It is very important that you let the Clerk know in advance what hours you will be

deliberating so that the lawyers may be present in the courthouse at any time the jury is

deliberating.

46.

You may only deliberate when all of you are together. This means, for instance, that in

the mornings before everyone has arrived or when someone steps out of the jury room to go to

the restroom, you may not discuss the case. As well, the admonition that you are not to speak to

anyone outside the jury room about this case still applies during your deliberation.

47.

After you have reached a unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill in,

date and sign the verdict form and advise the Court that you have reached a verdict. The

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 18 of 19
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

foreperson should hold onto the filled-in verdict form and bring it into the courtroom when the

jury returns the verdict. Thank you for your careful attention. The case is now in your hands. 

You may now retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations.

Dated: [ONLY SIGN AND DATE AFTER

INSTRUCTION READ TO THE JURY] 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02656-WHA Document 391 Filed 10/31/06 Page 19 of 19