Opinion ID: 2815021
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejected Instruction

Text: Wessel and Lay contend that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to give their proposed instruction which stated: “You have heard evidence about whether the conduct of one or more defendants may have violated a court order. You may consider this evidence in your deliberations. But remember that the issue is whether the defend16 No. 13-3416 ants used excessive force against the plaintiff, not whether a court order might have been violated.” Wessel and Lay contend that they were prejudiced by the district court’s refusal because there was trial testimony that Wessel and Lay violated a standing order by the state court judge and an oral statement by the same judge that the restraints were to be removed when Davis used the restroom in the courthouse. The district court said that it rejected the proposed instruction because the use of the term “excessive force” was confusing in the context of the bodily restraint claim raised by Davis, and the proposed instruction was unnecessary because the court’s instructions set forth the legal standard. The district court stated that “[a]dmission of the court order was relevant to whether the security reasons given by Defendants for not removing the restraints were legitimate or pretextual. The jury was not confused that the court order automatically meant that the restraints were excessive.” Because we have determined that we must remand for a new trial based upon the elements instruction, we will not dwell on Wessel and Lay’s contention regarding the rejected “court order” instruction. We note, however, that the proposed instruction was flawed; as the district court observed, it confusingly referred to Davis’s claims against them as being for “excessive force.” However, a modified version of the instruction would have placed the evidence of Judge Hack- ett’s purported standing order in proper context. The district judge gave a similar instruction that helpfully placed the ev- idence of the Facility directives in the proper context. Ultimately, whether such an instruction would be appropriate in a retrial will depend upon the evidence and argument presented at that retrial. No. 13-3416 17