Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00441-14/pdf.json

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

---

Case No.: 13-cv-00441-NC

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

JOSE ANTONIO AGUILAR 

JARAMILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL LEISHMAN, ANTONIO 

MONTOJO, AND THE CITY OF SAN 

MATEO,

Defendants.

Case No.13-cv-00441-NC 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is my duty to 

instruct you as to the law of the case. 

Each of you has received a copy of these instructions that you may take with you to 

the jury room to consult during your deliberations.

You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as 

indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be. 

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. And 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 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

evidence before you. You will recall that you took an oath to do so. In following my 

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

are all important.

II. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN THIS CASE

The following is a brief review of the case: 

This is a civil case of alleged excessive use of force by San Mateo Police Department 

officers. It stems from an incident that occurred on the evening of March 13, 2012, in the 

City of San Mateo. Plaintiff Jose Antonio Aguilar Jaramillo was arrested that night. 

Jaramillo contends that the arresting officers, Michael Leishman and Antonio Montojo, 

used excessive and unreasonable force against him. Leishman and Montojo deny the 

claim, and instead contend that the force they used was reasonable under the 

circumstances. 

III. BURDEN OF PROOF

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. 

IV. EVIDENCE

A. Evidence You May Consider

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of: (1) the 

sworn testimony of any witness; (2) the exhibits received into evidence; and (3) any facts 

to which the lawyers have agreed.

1. Evaluation of Witness Testimony

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 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

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. 

2. Use of Interpreters

Languages other than English were used during this trial. The evidence to be 

considered by you is only that provided through the official court interpreters. Although 

some of you may know Spanish, it is important that all jurors consider the same evidence. 

Therefore, you must accept the English translation. You must disregard any different 

meaning.

You must not make any assumptions about a witness or a party based solely upon the 

use of an interpreter to assist that witness or party.

3. Expert Witnesses

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. The expert witnesses who testified in this case are Dr. Henry J. Domeniconi and 

Dr. Robert D. Argand. 

//

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

4. Stipulated Facts

The parties have agreed to certain facts that have been provided to you. You should 

therefore treat these facts as having been proved.

B. Things You May Not Consider

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 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. 

(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. 

C. Types of Evidence

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. 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.

By way of example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

you may find from that fact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such 

as a turned on garden hose, may provide a different explanation for the presence of water 

on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proved by 

circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the light of reason, 

experience, and common sense. 

D. Evidence in Electronic Format

Those exhibits capable of being displayed electronically will be provided to you in 

that form, and you will be able to view them in the jury room. A computer will be 

available to you in the jury room. 

A court technician will show you how to operate the computer and how to locate and 

view the exhibits on the computer. You will also be provided with a paper list of all 

exhibits received in evidence. If you need additional equipment or supplies, you may 

make a request by sending a note. 

In the event of any technical problem, or if you have questions about how to operate 

the computer or other equipment, you may send a note to the clerk, signed by your 

foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. Be as brief as possible in describing 

the problem and do not refer to or discuss any exhibit you were attempting to view.

If a technical problem or question requires hands-on maintenance or instruction, a 

court technician may enter the jury room with the clerk present for the sole purpose of 

assuring that the only matter that is discussed is the technical problem. When the court 

technician or any non-juror is in the jury room, the jury shall not deliberate. No juror may 

say anything to the court technician or any non-juror other than to describe the technical 

problem or to seek information about operation of equipment. Do not discuss any exhibit 

or any aspect of the case. 

The sole purpose of providing the computer in the jury room is to enable jurors to 

view the exhibits received in evidence in this case. You may not use the computer for any 

other purpose. At my direction, technicians have taken steps to make sure that the 

computer does not permit access to the Internet or to any “outside” website, database, 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 5 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

directory, game, or other material. Do not attempt to alter the computer to obtain access to 

such materials. If you discover that the computer provides or allows access to such 

materials, you must inform me immediately and refrain from viewing such materials. Do 

not remove the computer or any electronic data from the jury room, and do not copy any 

such data. 

V. JARAMILLO’S SECTION 1983 CLAIM (FEDERAL CLAIM)

Plaintiff Jaramillo 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.

A. Elements and Burden of Proof 

In order to prevail on his section 1983 claim against Leishman and Montojo, 

Jaramillo 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 defendants Leishman and Montojo were acting 

under color of law at the time of this incident.

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

has proved all the elements he is required to prove under the other section 1983 

instructions, your verdict should be for Jaramillo. If, on the other hand, Jaramillo has 

failed to prove any one or more of these elements, your verdict should be for the defendant 

officers Leishman and Montojo.

B. Causation

In order to establish that the acts or failures to act of Leishman and Montojo deprived 

Jaramillo of his particular rights under the United States Constitution as explained in later 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 6 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

instructions, Jaramillo must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officers’ 

conduct was so closely related to the deprivation of Jaramillo’s rights as to be the moving 

force that caused the ultimate injury.

C. 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, Jaramillo must prove 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Leishman or Montojo used excessive force on 

Jaramillo.

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 Leishman and Montojo used excessive force in this case, 

consider all of the circumstances known to the officers on the scene, including:

1. The severity of the crime or the circumstances to which Leishman and 

Montojo were responding;

2. Whether Jaramillo posed an immediate threat to the safety of Leishman, 

Montojo, or to others;

3. Whether Jaramillo was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest 

by flight;

4. The amount of time and any changing circumstances during which Leishman 

or Montojo 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 Jaramillo.

D. Excessive Force

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

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 7 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

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.

VI. JARAMILLO’S STATE LAW CLAIMS

A. Bane Act (California Civil Code § 52.1)

1. Elements

Jaramillo claims that Leishman or Montojo intentionally interfered with his civil 

rights by threats, intimidation or coercion. To establish this claim, Jaramillo must prove 

all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. (a) That Leishman or Montojo acted towards Jaramillo in a manner that a 

reasonable person would have found threatening, intimidating, or coercive, 

which interfered with Jaramillo’s rights under the United States or California 

constitutions to be free from excessive force;

or

(b) That Leishman or Montojo acted violently against Jaramillo, which 

interfered with Jaramillo’s rights under the United States or California 

constitutions to be free from excessive force; 

or

(c) That Leishman or Montojo acted violently against Jaramillo to prevent

Jaramillo from exercising his rights under the United States or California 

constitutions to be free from excessive force, or to retaliate against him 

for exercising these rights. 

2. That Jaramillo was harmed; and

3. That Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing 

Jaramillo’s harm. 

2. Substantial Factor – Defined 

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. 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 8 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. 

B. Battery by a Peace Officer

1. Elements

Jaramillo claims that Leishman or Montojo harmed him by using unreasonable force 

to arrest him. To establish this claim, Jaramillo must prove all of the following by a 

preponderance of the evidence:

1. That Leishman or Montojo intentionally touched Jaramillo; 

2. That Leishman or Montojo used unreasonable force to arrest Jaramillo;

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

4. That Jaramillo was harmed; and

5. That Leishman’s or Montojo’s use of unreasonable force was a substantial 

factor in causing Jaramillo’s harm.

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 Leishman or Montojo used unreasonable force, you must

determine the amount of force that would have appeared reasonable to a police officer in 

Leishman’s or Montojo’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 Jaramillo reasonably appeared to pose an immediate threat to the 

safety of Leishman, Montojo, or others; and

3. Whether Jaramillo 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 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 9 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

2. Intent – Defined 

Leishman or Montojo acted intentionally if they intended to cause harmful or 

offensive contact with Jaramillo, or if they were substantially certain that harmful or 

offensive contact would result from their conduct. 

C. Negligence 

1. Elements

Jaramillo claims that he was harmed by Leishman’s or Montojo’s negligence. To 

establish this claim, Jaramillo must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the 

evidence:

1. That Leishman or Montojo was negligent;

2. That Jaramillo was harmed; and

3. That Leishman’s or Montojo’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing 

Jaramillo’s harm.

2. Basic Standard of Care – Defined 

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 person would have acted in Leishman’s, 

Montojo’s, and Jaramillo’s situation.

3. Comparative Fault of Plaintiff

Leishman and Montojo claim that Jaramillo’s own negligence contributed to his 

harm. To succeed on this defense, Leishman and Montojo must prove both of the 

following by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. That Jaramillo was negligent; and

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

If Leishman and Montojo prove the above, Jaramillo’s damages for negligence are 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 10 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

reduced by your determination of the percentage of Jaramillo’s responsibility. I will 

calculate the actual reduction.

4. Causing Harm: Substantial Factor – Defined 

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.

D. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

1. Elements

Jaramillo claims that the conduct of Leishman or Montojo caused him to suffer 

severe emotional distress. To establish this claim, Jaramillo must prove all of the 

following by a preponderance of the evidence: 

1. That Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct was outrageous; 

2. That Leishman or Montojo intended to cause Jaramillo’s emotional distress; 

or

That Leishman or Montojo acted with reckless disregard of the probability that 

Jaramillo would suffer emotional distress, knowing that Jaramillo was present when 

the conduct occurred;

3. That Jaramillo suffered severe emotional distress; and 

4. That Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing

Jaramillo’s severe emotional distress.

2. Outrageous Conduct – Defined 

“Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds 

of decency. Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as 

intolerable in a civilized community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such 

as indignities, annoyances, hurt feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is 

expected to endure.

In deciding whether Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct was outrageous, you may 

consider, among other factors, the following:

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 11 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

(a) Whether Leishman or Montojo abused a position of authority or a 

relationship that gave them real or apparent power to affect Jaramillo’s interests;

(b) Whether Leishman or Montojo knew that Jaramillo was particularly 

vulnerable to emotional distress; and

(c) Whether Leishman or Montojo knew that their conduct would likely result in 

harm due to mental distress.

3. Reckless Disregard – Defined 

Leishman or Montojo acted with reckless disregard in causing Jaramillo’s emotional

distress if:

1. Leishman or Montojo knew that emotional distress would probably result 

from their conduct; or

2. Leishman or Montojo gave little or no thought to the probable effects of their 

conduct.

4. Severe Emotional Distress – Defined 

Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, 

anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame.

“Severe emotional distress” is not mild or brief; it must be so substantial or long 

lasting that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to bear it. 

Jaramillo is not required to prove physical injury to recover damages for severe emotional 

distress.

VII. DAMAGES

A. Multiple Legal Theories

Jaramillo seeks damages from Leishman and Montojo under more than one legal 

theory. However, each item of damages may be awarded only once, regardless of the 

number of legal theories alleged. You will be asked to decide whether defendants are 

liable to Jaramillo under the following legal theories:

1. Violation of the Fourth Amendment—Excessive Force

2. Interference with Jaramillo’s Civil Rights (Bane Act)

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 12 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

3. Battery

4. Negligence

5. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 

Past, noneconomic loss, including physical pain and mental suffering, are recoverable 

only once under all of the above legal theories.

B. Proof and Measure 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.

If you find for Jaramillo on one or more substantive claims against one or both 

defendants, you must determine Jaramillo’s damages. Jaramillo has the burden of proving 

damages by a preponderance of the evidence. Damages means the amount of money that 

will reasonably and fairly compensate Jaramillo for any injury you find was caused by 

defendants. In determining the measure of damages, you should consider the following:

1. The nature and extent of the injuries;

2. The disability, disfigurement, and loss of enjoyment of life experienced and 

which with reasonable probability will be experienced in the future;

3. The mental, physical, and 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;

5. The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, business 

opportunities, and employment opportunities lost to the present time;

6. The reasonable value of wages, earnings, earning capacity, business 

opportunities, and employment opportunities and 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 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 13 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

conjecture.

C. Punitive Damages

If you find one or both defendants liable, 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.

Here, Jaramillo 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 Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct that 

harmed Jaramillo was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of Jaramillo’s rights. 

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

injuring Jaramillo. Conduct is in reckless disregard of Jaramillo’s rights if, under the 

circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to Jaramillo’s safety or rights, or if 

Leishman or Montojo acts in the face of a perceived risk that their actions will violate 

Jaramillo’s rights under federal law. An act or omission is oppressive if Leishman or 

Montojo injures or damages or otherwise violates Jaramillo’s rights 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 Jaramillo.

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 

Leishman’s or Montojo’s conduct. In addition, you may consider the relationship of any 

award of punitive damages to any actual harm inflicted on Jaramillo.

VIII. CONDUCT OF THE JURY

Because you must base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case and on 

these instructions, I remind you that you must not be exposed to any other information 

about the case or to the issues it involves. Except for discussing the case with your fellow 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 14 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

jurors during your deliberations:

Do not communicate with anyone in any way and do not let anyone else 

communicate with you in any way about the merits of the case or anything to do with it. 

This includes discussing the case in person, in writing, by phone or electronic means, via 

email, text messaging, or any Internet chat room, blog, website or other feature. This 

applies to communicating with your family members, your employer, the media or press, 

and the people involved in the trial. If you are asked or approached in any way about your 

jury service or anything about this case, you must respond that you have been ordered not 

to discuss the matter and to report the contact to the court.

Do not read, watch, or listen to any news or media accounts or commentary about the 

case or anything to do with it; do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, 

searching the Internet or using other reference materials; and do not make any 

investigation or in any other way try to learn about the case on your own.

The law requires these restrictions to ensure the parties have a fair trial based on the 

same evidence that each party has had an opportunity to address. A juror who violates 

these restrictions jeopardizes the fairness of these proceedings, and a mistrial could result 

that would require the entire trial process to start over. If any juror is exposed to any 

outside information, please notify the court immediately.

IX. THE JURY’S 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 

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 15 of 16
Case No.:13-cv-00441-NC 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

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. 

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

send a note through the courtroom deputy, 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.

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 will advise the Court that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015 _____________________________________

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00441-NC Document 135 Filed 02/05/15 Page 16 of 16