Opinion ID: 857195
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Consistent with our 2011 opinion, we reject

Text: Markgraf’s other claims. Previously, Markgraf made two other claims on appeal: First, that the district court erred in excluding evidence of A.D. V. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL 27 Eklund’s drug usage and criminal history. Second, that the district court erred by failing to include portions of Markgraf’s jury instructions. Nothing has changed since we denied both of these claims in our first opinion. A.D., 636 F.3d at 560 nn.1–2. The evidence was properly excluded because Eklund’s conduct was not in issue during the liability phase of the trial. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in formulating the jury instructions. “Having correctly stated what the law was [under Lewis], the court was not obliged to state what the law was not.” Id. at 560 n.1 (emphasis in original). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in failing to instruct on the “contours” of the standard as Markgraf proposed, because his instructions covered points that were not in issue. III. Conclusion The district court correctly denied Markgraf’s renewed motion for JMOL, because the jury reasonably found that Markgraf shot Eklund with a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective. However, we reverse and remand the fee award to permit the district court to redetermine the amount of a reasonable fee in light of an intervening change in our case law. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(4).