Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00284/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00284-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

ALEXIS CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, and PERRY HOLLIS, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00284 WHA

DRAFT JURY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 2

PROVIDED TO THE PARTIES AT APPROXIMATELY NOON, MARCH 10, 2006. 

THE CHARGING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD AT 7:30 A.M., MARCH 13, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 12
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

1.

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

attorneys, 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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 12
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

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 some testimony and exhibits have been

received only for a limited purpose; where 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.

6.

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. 

7.

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.

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 3 of 12
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

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.

8.

You have heard testimony from persons who, 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.

9.

In examining an expert witness, counsel may ask a hypothetical question. This is a

question in which the witness is asked to assume the truth of a set of facts, and to give an opinion

based on that assumption.

In permitting this type of question, the court does not rule, and does not necessarily find

that all the assumed facts have been proved. It only determines that those assumed facts are

within the possible range of the evidence. It is for you to decide from all the evidence whether

or not the facts assumed in a hypothetical question have been proved. If you should decide 

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 4 of 12
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

that any assumption in a question has not been proved, you are to determine the effect of that

failure of proof on the value and weight of the expert opinion based on the assumed facts.

10.

Certain charts and summaries that have not been received in evidence have been shown

to you in order to help explain the contents of books, records, documents, or other 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.

11.

You should decide the case as to each defendant separately. Unless otherwise stated, the

instructions apply to all parties.

12.

You may consider whether a party failed to explain or deny some unfavorable evidence.

Failure to explain or to deny unfavorable evidence may suggest that the evidence is true.

13.

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

other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that any witness should be

discredited. Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. 

Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. You

should consider whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something

trivial.

14.

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.

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 5 of 12
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

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.

15.

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.

16.

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

send a note through the marshal, 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.

17.

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 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 6 of 12
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

18.

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.

19.

On any claim, if you find that each of the elements on which the plaintiff has the burden

of proof has been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff on that claim, unless you also

find that the defendant has proved an affirmative defense, in which event your verdict should be

for the defendant on that claim.

20.

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 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 which will reasonably and fairly compensate the plaintiff for any injury you

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

(1) The nature and extent of the injuries;

(2) The disability, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life experienced

and which with reasonable probability will be experienced in the

future;

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

and which with reasonable probability will be experienced in the

future;

(4) The reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, and

services received to the present time;

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 7 of 12
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

(5) The reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, and

services which with reasonable probability will be required in the

future;

(6) The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity,

salaries, employment and employment opportunities lost before

plaintiff returned to work on January 26, 2005;

(7) The reasonable value of necessary expenses required to the present

time;

(8) The reasonable value of necessary expenses which with reasonable

probability will be required in the future;

21.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence,

and 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.

22.

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.

23.

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.

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 8 of 12
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

24.

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

The purposes of punitive damages are not to compensate the plaintiff, but to punish a defendant

and to deter a defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future. Punitive damages

in this case would be available only against Officer Hollis. Punitive damages may not be

awarded against the City and County of San Francisco. 

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

punitive damages should be awarded. You may award punitive damages only if you find that

defendant’s conduct 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

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

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

of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights under federal law. An act or

omission is oppressive if the person who performs or fails to perform it 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. 

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

compensatory, damages.

If you find that defendant Hollis’s conduct was malicious, oppressive or in reckless

disregard of the plaintiff’s rights, you will determine the proper amount of punitive damages in

later deliberations. You do not need to calculate the amount of damages now. 

25.

The conduct of a defendant is a cause of harm to plaintiff if it is a substantial factor in

causing the harm. 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 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 9 of 12
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

26.

On the plaintiff’s excessive-force claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of

the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) the acts or omissions of the defendant were intentional;

(2) the defendant acted under color of law; and

(3) the acts or omissions of the defendant were the cause of the

deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights protected by the Constitution or

laws of the United States.

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

been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed

to prove any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant. The parties have

stipulated that defendants acted under color of law.

27.

The plaintiff claims the defendant, by using excessive force in making a lawful arrest,

deprived the plaintiff of the Fourth Amendment constitutional right to be free from an

unreasonable seizure.

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 defendant used excessive force are

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

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 10 of 12
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

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

escape.

28.

When a plaintiff is deprived of a constitutional right as a result of the official policy of a

city and county, the city and county is liable for damages caused by the deprivation.

“Official policy” means:

(1) a rule or regulation promulgated, adopted or ratified by the

governmental entity’s legislative body; 

(2) a policy statement or decision that is officially made by the city

and county’s policy-making official; or

(3) a custom that is a permanent, widespread, well-settled practice that

constitutes a standard operating procedure of the city and county;

or

(4) an act or omission ratified by the city and county’s policy-making

official. 

29.

On the plaintiff’s claim for failure to train, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each

of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

(1) the city and county’s training program on use of force and

handcuffing was not adequate to train its officers employees to

properly handle the usual and recurring situations with which they

must deal;

(2) the city and county was deliberately indifferent to the need to train

its officers employees adequately; and

(3) the failure to provide proper training was the cause of the

deprivation of the plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution to be free

from excessive force.

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 11 of 12
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

“Deliberate indifference” is the conscious or reckless disregard of the consequences of

ones acts or omissions. To establish deliberate indifference, the plaintiff must prove that the

defendant knew that the plaintiff faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that

risk by failing to take reasonable measures to correct it.

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

been proved, your verdict should be for the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, the plaintiff has failed

to prove any of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant. 

Case 3:05-cv-00284-WHA Document 162 Filed 03/10/06 Page 12 of 12