Simpson v. McNack et al

Filing 172

COURT'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM (May 11, 2010).(emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. OFFICER NGUYEN, OFFICER WAYBRIGHT, OFFICER CERRUTI, SGT. STANLEY, Defendants. ___________________________________/ We, the jury in the above-entitled action, unanimously find the following special verdict on the questions submitted to us. GORDON SIMPSON, Plaintiff, COURT'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM (May 11, 2010) No. C-06-4837 EMC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

SECTION 1983 CLAIM AGAINST OFFICERS IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 1. Has Plaintiff Gordon Simpson proven by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the officer defendants listed below deprived him of his constitutional rights by using excessive force? Defendant Officer Nguyen Defendant Officer Waybright Defendant Officer Cerruti Defendant Sgt. Stanley Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No _____ No _____

If you answered "yes" to any part of Question 1, then proceed to Question 2. If you answered "no" to all of Question 1, then skip all remaining questions, sign the verdict form where indicated below, and return the form to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. 2.

DAMAGES If you find in favor of Plaintiff Gordon Simpson with respect to his claim against any of the officer defendants in Question 1, what is the amount of damages that should be awarded to him? Amount _______________

Has Plaintiff Gordon Simpson proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to punitive damages with respect to any of the officer defendants? Defendant Officer Nguyen Defendant Officer Waybright Defendant Officer Cerruti Defendant Sgt. Stanley Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No _____ No _____

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// ///

If you answered "yes" to any part of Question 3 above, then what is the amount of punitive damages that should be awarded to Mr. Simpson from each defendant for which you answered "Yes." Defendant Officer Nguyen Defendant Officer Waybright Defendant Officer Cerruti Defendant Sgt. Stanley Amount _______________ Amount _______________ Amount _______________ Amount _______________

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a. 4.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES If you have found that at least one of the officer defendants violated Plaintiff Gordon Simpson's constitutional rights, the Court is required to make additional determinations. Please answer all of the following special interrogatories (i.e., Questions 4(a)-(e)).

Did Plaintiff Gordon Simpson raise his arms and clench his fists in a fighting stance when initially approached by Defendant Officer Nguyen? Yes _____ No _____

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

b.

When Plaintiff Gordon Simpson and Defendant Officer Nguyen first made contact, was there a smell of alcohol coming from Plaintiff Gordon Simpson? Yes _____ No _____

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// /// e. d. c.

Did Plaintiff Gordon Simpson, at any time during the incident in question, refuse to comply with the commands given to him by the officer defendants? Yes _____ No _____

Did Plaintiff Gordon Simpson, at any time during the incident in question, attack or struggle against the officer defendants? Yes _____ No _____

Was Plaintiff Gordon Simpson resisting the officer defendants' attempt to restrain and arrest him? Yes _____ No _____

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please have the presiding foreperson sign and date the verdict form where indicated below, and return the form to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk.

Dated: May ____, 2010

Signed: _________________________

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4