Arden v. Kastell et al

Filing 159

JURY INSTRUCTION SUPPLEMENT 1. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/21/2014. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10
11 GARY ARDEN,
12
13

Case No. 10-cv-00436 NC
Plaintiff,

JURY INSTRUCTION
SUPPLEMENT 1

v.

14 FRANK KASTELL,
15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

At this point, I will give you a further instruction in response to jury note
number 42. By giving a further instruction at this time, I do not mean to emphasize
this instruction over any other instruction. You are not to attach undue importance to
the fact that this was read separately to you. You shall consider this instruction
together with all of the other instructions that were given to you.
In order to establish his claim for violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
Gary Arden must prove each of the following three things by a preponderance of the
evidence:
First, that Frank Kastell made a false statement about Gary Arden in a police
report. Gary Arden may show either, or both, of two types of false statements: (1)
statements attributed to witnesses, and (2) statements of Frank Kastell’s own
Case No. 10-cv-00436 NC
SUPPLEMENTAL JURY INSTRUCTION

1
2
3

obs
servations.
Second, that Fran Kastell’s false statem shock the consc
nk
s
ment
ks
cience, that is, he
del
liberately made a false statement either:
m
e

4

(a)

With inten to deprive Gary Ard of his rig
nt
e
den
ghts; OR,

5

(b)

With delib
berate indiff
ference to G
Gary Arden rights. D
n’s
Deliberate

6

ind
difference is the consci
s
ious or reck
kless disrega of the c
ard
consequence of one’s acts or
es

7

om
missions. It entails som
mething mor than negl
re
ligence but is satisfied by someth
d
hing

8

less than acts or omission for the ve purpose of causing harm or w knowle
ns
ery
e
g
with
edge

9

tha harm will result.
at
l

10
0

Third, that Frank Kastell’s deliberate fa stateme or statem
,
k
d
alse
ent
ments abou Gary
ut

11
1

Ard in Fran Kastell’s report were a proxima cause of Gary Arde prosecution
den
nk
ate
f
en’s

12
2

for embezzlem
r
ment.

13
3

Also, the jury is not asked to decide if F
n
o
Frank Kaste deprived Gary Arde of
ell
d
en

14
4

his rights unde the Unite States Co
s
er
ed
onstitution by conduct
ting an impr
roper arrest
t,

15
5

det
tention, or interrogatio or by fai
i
on,
iling to pres
serve eviden
nce. The ju is not as
ury
sked to

16
6

dec if probable cause existed to conduct an a
cide
c
arrest, deten
ntion, or interrogation of

17
7

Ga Arden.
ary

18
8
19
9

w
tire
ury
nd
erations.
You will now ret to the ju room an continue your delibe

20
0
21
1
22
2

IT IS SO OR
T
RDERED.

23
3

Date: Octobe 21, 2014
er

____
__________
__________
____
Nath
hanael M. C
Cousins
Unit States M
ted
Magistrate J
Judge

24
4
25
5
26
6
27
7
28
8
Case No. 10-cv-0043
36

SUPPL
LEMENTA JURY
AL
INSTRUCTION

2