Ridgell v. Pine Bluff, City of et al

Filing 46

ORDER: Ridgell's official-capacity claim against Mayor Debe Hollingsworth is dismissed without prejudice. 34 Motion in limine is partly granted and partly denied. The Court attaches is working drafts of the (1) voir dire, (2) the preliminary i nstructions, (3) the final instructions, and (4) the verdict forms. Please file any suggestions for the voir dire, and objections to the preliminary instructions by Friday, 5/11/2018. Counsel should have 20 minute opening prepared. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 5/3/2018. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
ALBERT RIDGELL

v.

PLAINTIFF
No. 5:16-cv-73-DPM

CITY OF PINE BLUFF, A Public Body
Corporate and Politic; and DEBE
HOLLINGSWORTH, In Her Individual
and Official Capacity as Mayor for the
City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
1.

Ridgell' s official-capacity claim against Mayor Debe

Hollingsworth is dismissed without prejudice.
2.

For the reasons stated on the record at the 1 May 2018

hearing, the Defendants' motion in limine, NQ 34, is partly granted and
partly denied. By agreement, no one will mention that the Arkansas
Municipal League may pay some of any judgment.

The League's

provision of defense counsel is out of bounds, too. The Court will
inquire about connections to the League during voir dire. The relatedcase issues will be handled as discussed: no mention of the Jones
settlement; otherwise, Defendants' request for exclusion is overruled
with directions to both sides to keep the proof about the other
disputes/ cases to the essentials.

3.

The Court is attaching its working drafts of (1) the voir dire,

(2) the preliminary instructions, (3) the final instructions, and (4) the
verdict forms.

Please file any suggestions for the voir dire, and

objections to the preliminary instructions, by Friday, 11 May 2018.
We'll discuss the draft final instructions and draft verdict forms several
times during the trial.
4.

The Court forgot to say that counsel should have twenty-

minute openings prepared. We'll try to do them Monday afternoon,
but they may happen Tuesday morning.
So Ordered.
D.P. Marshall Jf
United States District Judge
3 rii~ ;;<.O I 8

- 2-

(1) VOIR DIRE

-1Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

A.

Preliminaries
 Thank you for serving. Echo “Called to Serve.”
 A morning of speaking the truth, voir dire = twelve
people good and true.
 All week.
 Urgent or extraordinary obligations this week?
 Rules of the Road:
- Can I be completely fair and impartial?
- Can I decide the case based solely on the
evidence seen and heard in this courtroom, the
law as explained by the Court, and my common
sense?
- Questions and Answers. You = you and your
immediate family.
- Raise your hand, state your name, and answer.
-2-

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

- Can answer at the bench if uncomfortable
answering a particular question in front of
others.
- Eighteen, but all—Notepads.
- Questionnaires. Summary.

Confirm lawyers

have.
- Case Sketch—Not evidence, just background
i. This is a civil case. In June 2007, Albert
Ridgell was hired by the City of Pine Bluff,
Arkansas, as the City Collector by thenmayor Carl Redus.

Debe Hollingsworth

was elected mayor in November 2012, and
was sworn in the following January. About
seven months later, in July 2013, Mayor
Hollingsworth discharged Ridgell. He was
-3Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

reinstated in August, after appealing his
discharge to the City Council. Ridgell was
again discharged by Mayor Hollingsworth
in October 2013. Ridgell contends that he
was discharged because of his race, and in
retaliation

for

discriminatory

having
practices

opposed
by

Mayor

Hollingsworth and Pine Bluff.

Mayor

Hollingsworth and Pine Bluff deny those
claims. They say Ridgell was discharged
for unsatisfactory job performance and
insubordination.
 Introductions
- Plaintiff = Albert Ridgell
Lawyer = Austin Porter Jr.
-4Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

- Defendants = City of Pine Bluff, and
Mayor Debe Hollingsworth
Lawyers = Amanda LaFever & John Wilkerson
- Witnesses [Read Lists]
- Know the parties? Lawyers? Witnesses?
B.

Call Eighteen, But All—Notepads

C.

General Background Questions
 Know other panel members? Know lawyers or Court
staff? Know witnesses?
 Legal training or experience?

Deal with the law

regularly through work?
 Prior jury service?
 Prior court experience? Sued or been sued? Witness?
 Religious convictions against sitting in judgment?
 Negative feelings about civil justice system?
-5Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

- Too many lawsuits?
- If sue, then win?
D.

Case-Specific Questions
Remember, answer about you and your immediate
family; approach to answer sensitive questions
 Employed in personnel or human resources?
 Anyone ever employed by a city?

A city-funded

program? A county?
 Any prior experience with the Arkansas Municipal
League?

Ever worked for the League or done

business with it? Arkansas Association of Counties?
Southern States Police Benevolent Association?
 Anyone work regularly with Pine Bluff? With any
city?
 Any experience with, or connection to, Pine Bluff?
-6Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

 Any strong opinions about Pine Bluff?
 Any strong opinions about Mayor Hollingsworth?
 Anyone ever experienced race discrimination on the
job? Gender discrimination?
 Anyone ever made a claim or complaint about
discrimination on the job?
 Anyone ever been retaliated against for opposing
workplace discrimination?
E.
F.

The Unasked Question?

G.

Lawyers’ Follow-Up Questions? Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(a).

H.

*

Juror Question Time

Strikes for Cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(c).*

Rule 47. Selecting Jurors
(a) EXAMINING JURORS. The court may permit the parties
or their attorneys to examine prospective jurors or may itself
do so. If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the
parties or their attorneys to make any further inquiry it
-7-

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

I.

Peremptory Challenges. Fed. R. Civ. P. 47(b).**

considers proper, or must itself ask any of their additional
questions it considers proper.
(b) PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES. The court must allow the
number of peremptory challenges provided by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1870.
(c) EXCUSING A JUROR. During trial or deliberation, the
court may excuse a juror for good cause.
Allen v. Brown Clinic, 531 F.3d 568, 572 (8th Cir. 2008).
“To challenge a juror for cause, a party must show actual
partiality growing out of the nature and circumstances of the case.
A district court is required to strike for cause any juror who is
shown to lack impartiality or the appearance of impartiality, and,
absent abuse of discretion, we will not interfere with the district
court’s determination of juror qualifications. The district court is
given broad discretion in determining whether to strike jurors for
cause because it is in the best position to assess the demeanor and
credibility of the prospective jurors.”
**

28 U.S.C. § 1870
“In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three
peremptory challenges. Several defendants or several
plaintiffs may be considered as a single party for the purposes
of making challenges, or the court may allow additional
peremptory challenges and permit them to be exercised
separately or jointly.
-8-

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

 Three each side.
 Challenging Strikes. Race or Gender? Batson.***
J.

Seat and Swear Jury.
“You and each of you do solemnly swear or affirm to
well and truly try the matter now on trial and render a
true verdict according to the law and the evidence.”

K.

Thanks and Goodbye venire.

All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or
panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the
Court.”
***

Three-part test.
“In order to succeed on a Batson challenge, a party must
satisfy a three-part test. First, an objecting party must make a
prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge was made on
the basis of race. Second, if a prima facie showing has been
made, the party striking the juror must offer a race-neutral
basis for striking the juror in question. Third, the trial court
must determine whether the objecting party has proven the
ultimate question of purposeful discrimination. . . . We . . .
strongly urge the district courts to make on-the-record rulings
articulating the reasoning underlying a determination on a
Batson objection.” Cook v. City of Bella Villa, 582 F.3d 840, 854
(8th Cir. 2009).
-9-

Court’s Draft Voir Dire
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

(2) DRAFT PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

-1Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1
Ladies and gentlemen, I will take a few moments now to give
you some initial instructions about this case and about your duties
as jurors. At the end of the trial I will give you further instructions.
I may also give you instructions during the trial.

Unless I

specifically tell you otherwise, all these instructions—both those I
give you now and those I give you later—are equally binding on
you and must be followed.
I am the judge of the law and you are the judges of the facts.
As judges of the facts, it’s your duty to determine the truth from
the evidence and the reasonable inferences arising from the
evidence. In making your factual decisions, you must not engage
in guess work or speculation.
This is a civil case. As I said, in June 2007, Albert Ridgell was
hired by the City of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, as the City Collector by
then-mayor Carl Redus. Debe Hollingsworth was elected mayor
-2Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

in November 2012, and was sworn in the following January. About
seven months later, in July 2013, Mayor Hollingsworth discharged
Ridgell. He was reinstated in August, after appealing his discharge
to the City Council.

Ridgell was again discharged by Mayor

Hollingsworth in October 2013. Ridgell contends that he was
discharged because of his race, and in retaliation for having
opposed discriminatory practices by Mayor Hollingsworth and
Pine Bluff. Mayor Hollingsworth and Pine Bluff deny those claims.
They say Ridgell was discharged for unsatisfactory job
performance and insubordination.
From all the evidence, you will decide what the true facts are.
You are entitled to consider all the evidence in the light of your
own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You may
use reason and common sense to draw conclusions from facts that
have been established by the evidence. You will then apply those
facts to the law that I give you in these and in my other instructions,
-3Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

and in that way reach your verdict. While you are the sole judges
of the facts, you must follow the law, as stated in my instructions,
whether you agree with it or not.
Do not allow any sympathy or any prejudice to influence you.
The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything
except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to
you.
You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial
as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your
verdict should be.

-4Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2
I have mentioned the word “evidence.” “Evidence” includes
the testimony of witnesses, documents, and other things received
as exhibits, any facts that have been stipulated—that is, formally
agreed to by the parties—and any facts that have been judicially
noticed—that is, facts which I say you may, but are not required to,
accept as true, even without evidence.
Certain things are not evidence:
1.

Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by

lawyers representing the parties in the case are not evidence.
2.

Objections are not evidence. Lawyers have a right to

object when they believe something is improper. You should not
be influenced by the objection.

If I sustain an objection to a

question, you must ignore the question and must not try to guess
what the answer might have been.

-5Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

3.

Testimony that I strike from the record, or tell you to

disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.
4.

Anything you see or hear about this case outside the

courtroom is not evidence, unless I specifically tell you otherwise
during the trial.
Furthermore, a particular item of evidence is sometimes
received for a limited purpose only. That is, it can be used by you
only for one particular purpose, and not for any other purpose. I
will tell you when that occurs, and instruct you on the purposes for
which the item can and cannot be used.
Finally, some of you may have heard the terms “direct
evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.”
concerned with those terms.

You should not be

The law makes no distinction

between direct and circumstantial evidence. You should give all
evidence the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive.

-6Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3
In deciding what the facts are, you will have to decide what
testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You
may believe all of what a witness said, or only part of it, or none of
it.
In deciding what testimony of any witness to believe, you
should consider several things: the witness’s intelligence; the
opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things
testified about; the witness’s memory; any motives that witness
may have for testifying a certain way; the manner of the witness
while testifying; whether that witness said something different at
an earlier time; the general reasonableness of the testimony; and
the extent to which the testimony is consistent with other evidence
that you believe.
A caution about considering a witness’s demeanor while
testifying. Many folks are nervous just being in court. And there
-7Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

are bold liars and shy truth-tellers. Use your common sense and
be discerning when judging someone’s credibility based on their
demeanor on the stand.
In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind
that people sometimes hear or see things differently and
sometimes forget things. You need to consider therefore whether
a contradiction is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of memory
or an intentional falsehood. That may depend on whether it has to
do with an important fact or only a small detail.

-8Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4
The burden of proving a fact is placed upon the party whose
claim or defense depends upon that fact. The party who has the
burden of proving a fact must prove it by a preponderance of the
evidence.

To prove something by a “preponderance of the

evidence” is to prove that it is more likely true than not true. It is
determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which
evidence is more believable.
If, on any issue of fact in the case, the evidence is equally
balanced, you cannot find that fact has been proved.

The

preponderance of the evidence is not necessarily established by the
greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented.
You’ve probably heard of the term “proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.” This is a stricter standard, which applies in
criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases like this one. You
should, therefore, put it out of your minds.
-9Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5
When the lawyers have finished questioning each witness,
you may propose questions to clarify the testimony.

In your

questions, follow these rules:
 Don’t express any opinion about the testimony;
 Don’t argue with a witness; and
 Don’t sign your name or juror number.
Submit your questions in writing by passing them to the
Court Security Officer. I will review each one with the lawyers. If
the question is proper, the lawyers or I will ask it.
Don’t put any special weight on a question just because a
juror suggested it. Don’t put any special weight on the question
because I may be the one asking it. And consider the witness’s
answer just like any other piece of evidence.
You may not get your question answered. For example, I may
decide that the question is not proper under the rules of evidence.
- 10 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

And even if the question is proper, you may not get an immediate
answer. For example, a later witness or a coming exhibit may
provide the answer.
Don’t feel slighted or disappointed if your question isn’t
asked or answered immediately.

Remember, you are not

advocates for either side; you are impartial judges of the facts.

- 11 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6
At the end of the trial you must make your decisions based on
what you recall of the evidence. You will not have a written
transcript to consult, and it may not be practical for the court
reporter to read back lengthy testimony. You must pay close
attention to the testimony as it is given.
If you wish, however, you may take notes to help you
remember what witnesses said. If you do take notes, please keep
them to yourself. Don’t share them with your fellow jurors during
the trial. When you go to the jury room to deliberate and decide
the case at the end of the trial, then you can share them with each
other. And do not let note taking distract you so that you do not
hear other answers by the witness.
When you leave at night, your notes will be secured and not
read by anyone.

- 12 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7
During the trial it will be necessary for me to talk with the
lawyers out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a bench
conference while the jury is present in the courtroom, or by calling
a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting, we are
working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain
evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, and to avoid
confusion and error. We will, of course, do what we can to keep
the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.

- 13 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8
Finally, to ensure fairness, you as jurors must obey the
following rules:
First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about
anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to
the jury room to decide on your verdict.
Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case, or about
anyone involved with it, until the trial has ended and you have
been discharged as jurors.
Third, when you are outside the courtroom do not let anyone
tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it
until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me.
If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial,
please report it to the court security officer immediately.

- 14 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to
any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case—you
should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is
important not only that you do justice in this case, but that you also
give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of
the lawsuit sees you talking to a person from the other side—even
if it is simply to pass the time of day—an unwarranted and
unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might arise. If any
lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in
the hall, ride the elevator or the like, it is because they are not
supposed to talk or visit with you.
Fifth, it will be necessary for you to tell your family, friends,
teachers, coworkers, or employer about your participation in this
trial so that you can let them know you are required to be in court.
You should warn them not to ask you about this case, not to tell
you anything they know or think they know about this case, and
- 15 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

not to discuss this case in your presence. You must not
communicate

with

anyone

about

the

parties,

witnesses,

participants, claims, evidence, or anything else related to this case,
or tell anyone anything about the jury’s deliberations in this case
until after I accept your verdict or until I give you specific
permission to do so.
During the trial, while you are in the courthouse, and after
you leave for the day, do not provide any information to anyone
by any means about this case. For example, do not talk face-to-face
or use any electronic device or media, such as the telephone, a cell
phone, a smart phone, iPad, computer, the Internet, any Internet
service, any text or instant messaging service, any Internet chat
room, blog, or website such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, or
Twitter, to communicate to anyone any information about this case
until I accept your verdict.

- 16 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Sixth, do not do any Internet research—using Google, for
example. Do not do any research by using libraries, reading the
newspapers, or in any other way making any investigation about
this case on your own. Do not visit or view any place discussed in
this case and do not use Internet maps or Google Earth or any other
program or device to search for or to view any place discussed in
the testimony. Also do not research any information about this
case, the law, or the people involved, including the parties, the
witnesses, the lawyers, or me.
Ask each juror: Juror No. —, on your oath, do you promise
not to post anything about your jury service on any social media
website such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or the like during
the trial? On your oath, do you promise not to use the Internet to
look up anything about the case, the matters discussed, the
lawyers, Ridgell, Pine Bluff, Mayor Debe Hollingsworth, me, or
the law?
- 17 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Seventh, do not read any news stories or articles in print, on
the Internet, or in any blog, about the case or about anyone
involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about
the case or about anyone involved with it. In fact, until the trial is
over I suggest that you avoid reading any newspapers or news
journals at all, and avoid listening to any TV or radio newscasts at
all. I do not know whether there might be any news reports of this
case, but if there are, you might inadvertently find yourself reading
or listening to something before you could do anything about it. I
can assure you, however, that by the time you have heard the
evidence in this case, you will know more about the matter than
anyone will learn through the news media.
Finally, I want to reiterate that, before the trial is over, you
are bound by your oaths not to discuss the evidence with anyone—
not even with a member of your family. And I think you can
understand the fairness and reasonableness of that rule. When we
- 18 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

start discussing the evidence and explaining the proof, there is a
tendency to start making up our minds. And you jurors are bound
by your oaths to keep an open mind on all of the material issues in
the case until you have heard, seen, or otherwise experienced all of
the evidence, not just some of it; until you have received the
Court’s final instructions as to the law; and until you have had the
benefit of the lawyers’ closing arguments.

- 19 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9
Here is how the trial will go:
First, Ridgell’s lawyer will make an opening statement. Next,
one of the lawyers for Pine Bluff and Mayor Hollingsworth will
make an opening statement.

An opening statement is not

evidence, but simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the
evidence to be.
Ridgell’s lawyer will then present evidence by calling
witnesses, and one of the lawyers for Pine Bluff and Mayor
Hollingsworth may cross-examine those witnesses.

Following

Ridgell’s case, the lawyers for Pine Bluff and Mayor Hollingsworth
will present evidence by calling witnesses, and Ridgell’s lawyer
may cross-examine those witnesses.
Finally, Ridgell’s lawyer may offer rebuttal evidence.
After presentation of evidence is completed, the lawyers will
make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the
- 20 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments
are not evidence.
After the closing arguments, the Court will give you some
final instructions. Then you’ll go to the jury room to deliberate on
your verdict.

- 21 Court’s Draft Preliminary Instructions
5:16-cv-73-DPM
3 May 2018
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

(3) DRAFT FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

-1Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1
Members of the Jury, the instructions I gave you at the
beginning of the trial and during the trial remain in effect. I now
give you some additional instructions.
You must, of course, continue to follow the instructions I gave
you earlier, as well as those I give you now. You must not single
out some instructions and ignore others because all are important.
This is true even though some of those I gave you at the beginning
of the trial are not repeated here.
The instructions I am about to give you now are in writing
and will be available to you in the jury room.

I emphasize,

however, that this does not mean they are more important than my
earlier instructions. Again, all instructions, whenever given and
whether in writing or not, must be followed.

-2Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Nothing I say in the instructions is to be taken as an indication
that I have any opinion about the facts of the case, or what that
opinion is. It is not my function to determine the facts. You will
determine the facts. During this trial I have occasionally asked
questions of witnesses.

Do not assume that because I asked

questions that I hold any opinion on the matters to which my
questions related.
Justice through trial by jury must always depend on the
willingness of each individual juror to seek the truth about the facts
from the same evidence presented to all the jurors; and to arrive at
a verdict by applying the same rules of law as given in the Court’s
instructions.

-3Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2
It is your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are.
Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law
demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the
evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you.

4
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3
I have mentioned the word “evidence.” The “evidence” in
this case consists of the testimony of witnesses, the documents and
other things received as exhibits, and the facts that have been
stipulated—that is, formally agreed to by the parties.
You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions
or conclusions from facts which have been established by the
evidence in the case.
Certain things are not evidence. I will list those things again
for you now:
1.

Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by
lawyers representing the parties in the case are not
evidence.

2.

Objections are not evidence. Lawyers have a right to
object when they believe something is improper. You
should not be influenced by the objection. If I sustained
5

Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

an objection to a question, you must ignore the question
and must not try to guess what the answer might have
been.
3.

Testimony that I struck from the record, or told you to
disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.

4.

Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the
courtroom is not evidence.

Finally, if you were instructed that some evidence was
received for a limited purpose only, you must follow that
instruction.

6
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4
Also, some of you may have heard the terms “direct
evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.” Do not be concerned
with those terms. The law makes no distinction between direct and
circumstantial evidence. You should give all evidence the weight
and value you believe it is entitled to receive.

7
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5
In deciding what the facts are, you will have to decide what
testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You
may believe all of what a witness said, or only part of it, or none of
it.
In deciding what testimony to believe, consider several
things: the witness’s intelligence; the opportunity the witness had
to have seen or heard the things testified about; the witness’s
memory;

any motives that witness may have for testifying a

certain way; the manner of the witness while testifying; whether
that witness said something different at an earlier time; the general
reasonableness of the testimony; and the extent to which the
testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe.
A caution about considering a witness’s demeanor while
testifying. Many folks are nervous just being in court. And there
are bold liars and shy truth-tellers. Use your common sense and
8
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

be discerning when judging someone’s credibility based on their
demeanor on the stand.
In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind
that people sometimes hear or see things differently and
sometimes forget things. You need to consider therefore whether
a contradiction is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of memory
or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on whether it has
to do with an important fact or only a small detail.

9
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6
The burden of proving a fact is placed upon the party whose
claim or defense depends upon that fact. The party who has the
burden of proving a fact must prove it by a preponderance of the
evidence.

To prove something by a “preponderance of the

evidence” is to prove that it is more likely true than not true. It is
determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which
evidence is more believable.
If, on any issue of fact in the case, the evidence is equally
balanced, you cannot find that fact has been proved.

The

preponderance of the evidence is not necessarily established by the
greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented.
You’ve probably heard of the term “proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.” This is a stricter standard, which applies in
criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases like this one. You
should, therefore, put it out of your minds.
10
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7
Your verdict must be for Ridgell and against Pine Bluff on
Ridgell’s race discrimination claim if Ridgell has proved all of the
following elements:
First, Pine Bluff fired Ridgell;
Second, Ridgell’s race was a motivating factor in Pine Bluff’s
decision to fire him;
Third, Pine Bluff was acting under color of municipal law;
and
Fourth, Pine Bluff fired Ridgell pursuant to Pine Bluff’s
official custom of discriminating against employees based on race.
Your verdict must be for Pine Bluff, however, if any of the
four elements has not been proved, or if it has been proved that
Pine Bluff would have fired Ridgell regardless of his race.
You may find that Ridgell’s race was a “motivating factor” in
the decision if it has been proved that the stated reasons for
11
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Ridgell’s discharge are not the real reasons, but are a pretext to hide
race discrimination. Ridgell’s race was a motivating factor if his
race played a part in the decision to fire him. Ridgell’s race can be
a motivating factor even if it was not the only reason for the
decision to fire him.
An “official custom” is a persistent and widespread practice
which is so permanent and well settled as to have the force of law.

Texas v. Lesage, 528 U.S. 19 (1999).
Lockridge v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, 315 F.3d
1005 (8th Cir. 2003).
Thelma D. ex rel. Delores A. v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis,
934 F.2d 929 (8th Cir. 1991).
12
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8
Your verdict must be for Ridgell and against Mayor
Hollingsworth on Ridgell’s race discrimination claim if Ridgell has
proved all of the following elements:
First, Mayor Hollingsworth fired Ridgell;
Second, Ridgell’s race was a motivating factor in Mayor
Hollingsworth’s decision to fire him; and
Third, Mayor Hollingsworth was acting under color of
municipal law.
Your verdict must be for Mayor Hollingsworth, however, if
any of the three elements has not been proved, or if it has been
proved that Mayor Hollingsworth would have fired Ridgell
regardless of his race.
You may find that Ridgell’s race was a “motivating factor” in
the decision if it has been proved that the stated reasons for
Ridgell’s discharge are not the real reasons, but are a pretext to hide
13
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

race discrimination. Ridgell’s race was a motivating factor if his
race played a part in the decision to fire him. Ridgell’s race can be
a motivating factor even if it was not the only reason for the
decision to fire him.

Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).
Texas v. Lesage, 528 U.S. 19 (1999).
Lockridge v. Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas, 315 F.3d
1005 (8th Cir. 2003).
14
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9
Your verdict must be for Ridgell and against Pine Bluff on
Ridgell’s retaliation claim if he has proved all of the following
elements:
First, Ridgell opposed discriminatory practices;
Second, Pine Bluff fired Ridgell;
Third, Ridgell’s discharge might discourage a reasonable
employee in the same or similar circumstances from opposing
discriminatory practices;
Fourth, Ridgell would not have been fired but for his
opposing discriminatory practices; and
Fifth, Pine Bluff fired Ridgell pursuant to Pine Bluff’s official
custom

of

retaliating

against

employees

who

oppose

discriminatory practices.
If any of these five elements has not been proved, your verdict
must be for Pine Bluff.
15
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

“But-for” causation doesn’t require that Ridgell’s opposition
to discriminatory practices have been the only reason for his
discharge. You may find that Ridgell would not have been fired
but for his opposition to discriminatory practices if it has been
proved that the stated reasons for Ridgell’s discharge are not the
real reasons but are a pretext to hide retaliation.
An “official custom” is a persistent and widespread practice
which is so permanent and well settled as to have the force of law.

16
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10
Your verdict must be for Ridgell and against Mayor
Hollingsworth on Ridgell’s retaliation claim if he has proved all of
the following elements:
First, Ridgell opposed discriminatory practices;
Second, Mayor Hollingsworth fired Ridgell;
Third, Ridgell’s discharge might discourage a reasonable
employee in the same or similar circumstances from opposing
discriminatory practices; and
Fourth, Ridgell would not have been fired but for his
opposing discriminatory practices.
If any of these four elements has not been proved, your
verdict must be for Mayor Hollingsworth.
“But-for” causation doesn’t require that Ridgell’s opposition
to discriminatory practices be the only reason for his discharge.
You may find that Ridgell would not have been fired but for his
17
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

opposition to discriminatory practices if it has been proved that the
stated reasons for Ridgell’s discharge are not the real reasons but
are a pretext to hide retaliation.

18
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 11
If you find in favor of Ridgell on his race discrimination claim
or his retaliation claim, then you must award him a sum that you
find will fairly and justly compensate him for damages you find he
sustained as a

direct result of Pine Bluff’s or

Hollingsworth’s conduct.

Mayor

Damages include wages and fringe

benefits you find Ridgell would have earned in his employment
with Pine Bluff if he hadn’t been fired. This amount should reflect
the time period of 15 October 2013 (when Ridgell was fired)
through today. You must subtract any earnings and benefits that
Ridgell received from other employment during that time. Award
only a net loss amount.
Damages also may include mental anguish, inconvenience,
and other nonmonetary losses. If you find that Ridgell suffered
any of these, you must enter separate amounts for each type and
must include the same items in more than one category.
19
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Ridgell has a duty under the law to mitigate his damages—
that is, to exercise reasonable diligence under the circumstances to
minimize his damages. Therefore, if you find that Ridgell failed to
seek out or take advantage of an opportunity that was reasonably
available to him, you must reduce his damages by the amount of
the wages and fringe benefits Ridgell reasonably could have
earned if he had sought out or taken advantage of such an
opportunity.
Ridgell must prove his damages by a preponderance of the
evidence. Remember, throughout your deliberations, you must
not engage in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. And you must
not award any damages as punishment or because of sympathy.
If you do not find that Ridgell’s damages have monetary
value, then you must return a verdict for Ridgell in the nominal
amount of One Dollar.

20
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 12
In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict,
there are certain rules you must follow. I will list those rules for
you now.
First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of
your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over
your discussions and speak for you here in court.
Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one
another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement if you
can do so without violence to individual judgment, because a
verdict must be unanimous.
Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but
only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully
with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow
jurors.

21
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion
persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision
simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a
verdict.
Third, if you need to communicate with me during your
deliberations, you may send a note to me through the court
security officer, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as
soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court.
Remember that you should not tell anyone—including me—how
your votes stand numerically.
Fourth, your verdicts must be based solely on the evidence
and on the law that I have given to you in my instructions. The
verdicts must be unanimous. Nothing I have said or done is
intended to suggest what your verdicts should be—that is entirely
for you to decide. Your verdicts will be your answers to some
questions. Please follow along with me as I read those questions.
22
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

Finally, these verdict forms are simply the written notice of
the decision that you reach in this case. You will take the forms to
the jury room; and when each of you has agreed on the answers,
your foreperson will fill in the forms, sign and date them, and
advise the court security officer that you are ready to return to the
courtroom.
The court security officer, and all other persons, are forbidden
from communicating in any way with any member of the jury on
any subject touching the merits of this case. Also, you are never to
reveal to any person, not even to the Court, how the jury stands,
numerically or otherwise, on the issues presented to you unless or
until you reach a unanimous verdict.
COURT SECURITY OFFICER OATH
Court security officer, do you solemnly swear or affirm to
keep this jury together in the jury room, and not to permit any
person to speak to or communicate with them concerning this case,
23
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

nor to do so yourself unless by order of the Court or to ask whether
they have agreed on a verdict, and to return them into the
courtroom when they have so agreed, or when otherwise ordered
by the Court?

24
Court’s Draft Final Instructions
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

(4) DRAFT VERDICT FORMS

1
Court’s Draft Verdict Forms
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

VERDICT No. 1—Pine Bluff
1.

On Ridgell’s race discrimination claim against Pine Bluff,
as submitted in Instruction No. 7, we find for:
________ Ridgell

2.

________ Pine Bluff

On Ridgell’s retaliation claim against Pine Bluff, as
submitted in Instruction No. 9, we find for:
________ Ridgell

________ Pine Bluff

If you found for Ridgell on either Question 1 or Question 2,
then answer Question 3. If you found for Pine Bluff on both
Question 1 and Question 2, your deliberations on this Verdict are
done. Go to Verdict No. 2.

2
Court’s Draft Verdict Forms
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

3.

We find Ridgell’s compensatory damages against Pine
Bluff, as submitted in Instruction No. 11, to be:
Wages and Fringe Benefits:

$_______________

Mental Anguish, Inconvenience,
and Other Nonmonetary Loss:

$_______________

If you find Ridgell suffered damages but his damages have no
monetary value, then enter a nominal damages amount of
$1.00 as the total, as submitted in Instruction No. 11.

Please sign and date this form.

____________________

____________________

Foreperson

Date
3

Court’s Draft Verdict Forms
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

VERDICT No. 2—Hollingsworth
1.

On

Ridgell’s

race

discrimination

claim

against

Hollingsworth, as submitted in Instruction No. 8, we find
for:
________ Ridgell
2.

________ Hollingsworth

On Ridgell’s retaliation claim against Hollingsworth, as
submitted in Instruction No. 10, we find for:
________ Ridgell

________ Hollingsworth

If you found for Ridgell on either Question 1 or Question 2,
then answer Question 3. If you found for Hollingsworth on both
Question 1 and Question 2, your deliberations on this Verdict are
done.

4
Court’s Draft Verdict Forms
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.

3.

We

find

Ridgell’s

compensatory

damages

against

Hollingsworth, as submitted in Instruction No. 11, to be:
Wages and Fringe Benefits:

$_______________

Mental Anguish, Inconvenience,
and Other Nonmonetary Loss:

$_______________

If you find Ridgell suffered damages but his damages have no
monetary value, then enter a nominal damages amount of
$1.00 as the total, as submitted in Instruction No. 11.

Please sign and date this form.

____________________

____________________

Foreperson

Date

5
Court’s Draft Verdict Forms
3 May 2018

5:16-cv-73-DPM
Albert Ridgell v. City of Pine Bluff et al.