Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02067/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02067-5/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE LITTLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KRISTOPHER TONG,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-2067 JSC

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Dated: January 28, 2015

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 20
2

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

DUTIES OF JURY TO FIND FACTS AND FOLLOW LAW

Members of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is my duty to instruct 

you on the law which applies to this case. A copy of these instructions will be available in the 

jury room for you to consult if you find it 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 any suggestion as to what verdict you should return-

-that is a matter entirely up to you.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 20
3

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

WHAT IS EVIDENCE

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

(1) the sworn testimony of any witness;

(2) the exhibits which have been received into evidence; and

(3) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 20
4

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

WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received 

into evidence. 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, will say in closing arguments, or have said 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) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their 

clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You 

should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.

(3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to 

disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition sometimes testimony and 

exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I have given a limiting instruction, you 

must follow it.

(4) 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 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 20
5

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

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

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

such as testimony by a witness about what the witness personally saw or heard or did. 

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

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.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 5 of 20
6

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

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.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 6 of 20
7

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

EXPERT EVIDENCE

Some witnesses, because of education or experience, are 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 reasons given for the opinion, and all the other evidence in the 

case.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 7 of 20
8

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

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

Plaintiff Andre Little was arrested at the Richmond Amtrak Station. Mr. Little 

contends that the arresting officer, Kristopher Tong, used excessive and unreasonable force 

when he grabbed Little, used a Taser on him, and handcuffed him. Officer Tong denies the 

claim, and instead contends that the force he used was reasonable under the circumstances.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 8 of 20
9

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

BURDEN OF PROOF - PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE

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.

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

presented it.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 9 of 20
10

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

SECTION 1983 CLAIM - INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTION

The plaintiff Andre Little brings his claims 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 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 10 of 20
11

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

SECTION 1983 CLAIM AND BURDEN OF PROOF

In order to prevail on his section 1983 claim against Defendant, Officer Tong, the 

Plaintiff, Mr. Little, must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. the defendant acted under color of law; and 

2. the acts of the defendant deprived the plaintiff of his particular rights 

under the United States Constitution as explained in later instructions. 

A person acts “under color of law” when the 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 Defendant Tong was acting under color of law at 

the time of this incident. 

If you find the plaintiff has proved each of these elements, and if you find that the 

plaintiff has proved all the elements he is required to prove under the other instructions, your 

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

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

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 11 of 20
12

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

CAUSATION

In order to establish that the acts or failures to act of Defendant Tong deprived the 

plaintiff, Mr. Little, of his particular rights under the United States Constitution as explained 

in later instructions, the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

officer’s conduct was so closely related to the deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights as to be the 

moving force that caused the ultimate injury. 

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 12 of 20
13

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

PARTICULAR RIGHTS – FOURTH AMENDMENT – EXCESSIVE FORCE

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

enforcement officer uses excessive force in making a lawful arrest or defending himself. 

Thus, in order to prove an unreasonable seizure in this case, the plaintiff must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Tong used excessive force on Mr. Little when 

the officer grabbed Mr. Little, took him to the ground, used a Taser on him, and/or handcuffed 

him. 

Under the Fourth Amendment, a law enforcement 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 the officer used excessive force in this case, consider all of the 

circumstances known to the officer on the scene, including:

1. The severity of the crime or the circumstances to which the officer was responding;

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

3. Whether the plaintiff was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by 

flight;

4. The amount of time and any changing circumstances during which the officer 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 the plaintiff.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 13 of 20
14

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

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Use of reasonable and legitimate force can result in an injury, even a serious injury. 

However, an officer is only liable if he or she uses excessive force. If an officer uses 

reasonable force, the officer cannot be liable under any circumstance, even if a serious injury 

results.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 14 of 20
15

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

PROVING 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.

If you find for the plaintiff, you must also determine the plaintiff’s damages. The 

plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages 

means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for any 

injury you find was caused by the defendant. You should consider the following:

• The nature and extent of the injuries;

• The disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life experienced and which with 

reasonable probability will be experienced in the future;

• The mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering experienced and which with 

reasonable probability will be experienced in the future;

• The reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received to the 

present time;

• The reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, and services received to the 

present time;

• The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, business opportunities, and 

employment opportunities lost to the present time;

• The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, business opportunities, and 

employment opportunities which with reasonable probability will be lost in the future.

It is for you to determine what damages, if any, have been proved.

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

conjecture.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 15 of 20
16

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

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

If you find the defendant liable for violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, you 

may, but are not required to, award punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are 

to punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. Punitive damages may not be 

awarded to compensate a plaintiff. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that 

punitive damages should be awarded, and, if so, the amount of any such damages.

You may award punitive damages only if you find that the individual defendant’s 

conduct that harmed the plaintiff was malicious, oppressive 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 the plaintiff. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights 

if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or 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. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant injures 

or damages or otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or 

severity, such as by the misuse or abuse of authority or power or by the taking advantage of 

some weakness or disability or misfortune of the plaintiff. 

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 the 

amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s 

conduct. In addition, you may consider the relationship of any award of punitive damages to 

any actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 16 of 20
17

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

USE OF NOTES

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.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 17 of 20
18

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

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 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 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 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 18 of 20
19

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

COMMUNICATION WITH COURT

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

send a note through the Court clerk 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; and 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 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 19 of 20
20

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

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.

Case 3:13-cv-02067-JSC Document 80 Filed 01/28/15 Page 20 of 20