Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1018

FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 30, 2012. (Attachments: #1 Special Verdict Form)(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. C 10-03561 WHA v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY (PHASE ONE) AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 1 1. 2 Members of the jury, it is now time for me to give you the final 3 instructions, including instructions on the law that governs this case. A copy of 4 these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to consult as 5 necessary. the side with the burden of proof has carried that burden, applying the elements of 8 proof required by the law, elements I will provide you in a moment. In following 9 my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore 10 others. You must not read into these instructions or into anything the Court may 11 For the Northern District of California It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence and to decide whether 7 United States District Court 6 have said or done as suggesting what verdict you should return — that is a matter 12 entirely up to you. 13 14 15 2. The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of: 1. 16 The sworn testimony of witnesses, whether presented in person or by depositions; 17 2. The exhibits received into evidence; and 18 3. Any stipulated facts or facts I told you were deemed to be 19 evidence. 20 21 22 23 3. Certain things, however, are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you: 1. Arguments, statements and objections by lawyers are not 24 evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have 25 said in their opening statements, closing arguments and at 26 other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, 27 but it is not evidence itself. If the facts as you remember 28 2 1 them differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, 2 your memory of them controls. 3 2. A suggestion in a question by counsel or the Court is not 4 evidence unless it is adopted by the answer. A question by 5 itself is not evidence. Consider it only to the extent it is 6 adopted by the answer. 7 3. Testimony or exhibits that have been excluded or stricken, 8 or that you have been instructed to disregard, are not 9 evidence and must not be considered. In addition, some testimony and exhibits have been received only for a 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 limited purpose; where I have given a limiting instruction, 12 you must follow it. 13 14 15 16 4. Anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in session is not evidence. 4. Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof 17 of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw 18 or heard, or did. Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from 19 which you could find another fact. By way of example, if you wake up in the 20 morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may find from that fact that it 21 rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a turned-on garden 22 hose, may explain the presence of water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you 23 decide that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider 24 all the evidence in the light of reason, experience and common sense. You should 25 consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the 26 weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to 27 decide how much weight to give to any evidence. 28 3 1 2 5. In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony 3 to believe and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a 4 witness says, or part of it or none of it. In considering the testimony of any 5 witness, you may take into account: 6 1. 7 The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; 2. The witness’ memory; 9 3. The witness’ manner while testifying; 10 4. The witness’ interest in the outcome of the case and any 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 8 12 bias or prejudice; 5. 13 14 testimony; 6. 15 16 17 18 Whether other evidence contradicted the witness’ The reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of all the evidence; and 7. Any other factors that bear on believability. 6. You are not required to decide any issue according to the testimony of a 19 number of witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a 20 smaller number or other evidence, which is more convincing to you. The 21 testimony of one witness worthy of belief is sufficient to prove any fact. This 22 does not mean that you are free to disregard the testimony of any witness merely 23 from caprice or prejudice, or from a desire to favor either side. It does mean that 24 you must not decide anything by simply counting the number of witnesses who 25 have testified on the opposing sides. The test is not the number of witnesses but 26 the convincing force of the evidence. You should base your decision on all of the 27 evidence regardless of which party presented it. 28 4 1 2 7. A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or 3 by evidence that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something or 4 has failed to say or do something that is inconsistent with the witness’ present 5 testimony. If you believe any witness has been impeached and thus discredited, 6 you may give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, you think it 7 deserves. 8 9 8. Discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between a witness’ testimony and that of other witnesses do not necessarily mean that such witness should be 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 discredited. Inability to recall and innocent misrecollection are common. Two 12 persons witnessing an incident or a transaction sometimes will see or hear it 13 differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to 14 something trivial should be considered by you. 15 However, a witness willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to 16 be distrusted in others. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who 17 willfully has testified falsely on a material point, unless, from all the evidence, 18 you believe that the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other 19 particulars. 20 21 22 9. In determining what inferences to draw from evidence you may consider, among other things, a party’s failure to explain or deny such evidence. 23 24 10. Certain charts and summaries have been received into evidence. Charts 25 and summaries are only as good as the underlying supporting testimony or 26 material. You should, therefore, give them only such weight as you think the 27 underlying material deserves. 28 5 1 2 11. Now I will address the burden of proof. In this case, the preponderance of 3 the evidence standard applies on all sides, so whoever has the burden of proof on 4 an issue must carry that issue by a preponderance of the evidence. When a party 5 has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance of the evidence, it 6 means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is more probably 7 true than not true. To put it differently, if you were to put the evidence favoring a 8 plaintiff and the evidence favoring a defendant on opposite sides of a scale, the 9 party with the burden of proof on the issue would have to make the scale tip somewhat toward its side. If the party fails to meet this burden, then the party 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 with the burden of proof loses on the issue. Preponderance of the evidence 12 basically means “more likely than not.” 13 12. 14 On any claim, if you find that plaintiff carried its burden of proof as to 15 each element of a particular claim, your verdict should be for plaintiff on that 16 claim. If you find that plaintiff did not carry its burden of proof as to each 17 element, you must find against plaintiff on that claim. This same principle also 18 applies to defendants on claims or defenses for which it has the burden of proof. 19 20 13. I will now turn to the law that applies to this case. Oracle seeks relief 21 against Google for alleged copyright infringement. Google denies infringing any 22 such copyrighted material and asserts that any use by it of copyrighted material 23 was protected, among other things, by a defense called “fair use,” which will be 24 explained below. If you find liability in this phase, we will consider the extent of 25 damages in the third phase of the trial. Now, I will give you an overview of 26 copyright law in general. Then I will give you a summary of the claims and 27 defenses at issue in this case. After that I will give you a further statement of 28 copyright law to help you in resolving the claims and defenses. 6 1 2 14. By federal statute, copyright includes exclusive rights to copy a work, 3 rights that lasts for 95 years from the date of publication. The rights include the 4 exclusive rights to: 5 1. 6 7 copyrighted work or to license others to do so; 2. 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 12 Recast, transform, or adapt the work, that is, prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; 3. 10 11 Make additional copies or otherwise reproduce the Distribute copies of the copyrighted work to the public by sale; and 4. Display publicly a copyrighted work. It is the owner of a copyright who may exercise these exclusive rights to 13 copy. Even though someone may acquire a copy of the copyrighted work, such as 14 a book from a bookstore, for example, the copyright owner retains rights to 15 control the making of copies of the work. 16 17 15. Copyright automatically exists in a work the moment it is fixed in any 18 tangible medium of expression, such as putting pen to paper. The owner of the 19 copyright may then register the copyright by delivering to the Copyright Office of 20 the Library of Congress a copy of the copyrighted work and applying via a 21 registration form, after which the Copyright Office will either allow or disallow 22 the application. By way of examples, copyrighted works can include 23 1. 24 Literary works like books, periodicals and, of particular interest here, operating manuals; 25 2. Musical works; 26 3. Photographs and drawings; 27 4. Motion pictures; 28 5. Computer programs, also of particular interest here. 7 1 Only that part of the work comprised of original works of authorship fixed 2 in any tangible medium of expression from which it can be perceived, 3 reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a 4 machine or device, can be protected by copyright. To take examples, words can 5 be fixed on paper, and a computer program can be fixed in the memory of a 6 mobile phone. 7 16. of all or more than a de minimis part of the copyrighted work, subject only to the 10 right of anyone to make fair use of all or a part of any copyrighted material, all as 11 For the Northern District of California As stated, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to make copies 9 United States District Court 8 will be explained below. 12 17. 13 The copyright confers ownership over the particular expression of ideas in 14 a work but it never confers ownership over ideas themselves. For example, if a 15 book describes a strategy for playing a card game, the copyright prevents anyone 16 (but the owner) from duplicating the book itself but everyone is still free to read 17 the book and to use the strategy, for the idea set forth in the book, that is the 18 strategy, is not protected by copyright. And, everyone is entitled to write their 19 own book about the same game and the same strategy so long as they do not 20 plagiarize the earlier book. Again, the main point is that the copyright protects 21 the particular expression composed by the author. 22 Another statutory limitation on the scope of a copyright is that copyright 23 never protects any procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, 24 principle, or discovery. Possibly such things can be claimed under the patent 25 system or by trade secret laws but they may not be claimed by copyright. For 26 purposes of your deliberations, however, I instruct you that the copyrights in 27 question do cover the structure, sequence and organization of the compilable 28 code. 8 1 18. 2 I will now turn to the claims in this case. Oracle claims Google has Edition, Version 1.4” (TX 464) and “Java 2 Standard Edition, Version 5.0” (TX 5 475), and the applications leading to those registrations appear at TX 3529 and 6 3530. Among other things, the registered copyrights generally include the 7 compilable code and documentation for the Java API packages. The main issues 8 you must decide concern these two general types of material contained therein, 9 namely “compilable code” and “documentation.” As used in these instructions 10 and the Special Verdict Form, the term API “compilable code” refers to method 11 For the Northern District of California infringed its copyrights in two registered works, namely, “Java 2 Standard 4 United States District Court 3 names and class names, declarations, definitions, parameters, organization, and 12 implementation (whether in the form of source code or object code) implementing 13 the various API functions. The “compilable code” does not include the English- 14 language comments you have heard about. Even though such comments are 15 embedded in the software program, these English-language comments do not get 16 compiled and are not used by the computer to perform API functions. Instead, the 17 English-language comments are part of what I will call the API “documentation,” 18 sometimes referred to as the “specification,” a term that encompasses all of the 19 English-language comments. The term “API documentation” includes all content 20 — including English-language comments as well as method names and class 21 names, declarations, definitions, parameters, and organization — in the reference 22 document for programmers. Again, please remember that although these English- 23 language comments appear in the software program listing, they can be extracted 24 for handy reference in the guides made available to programmers. So, I will be 25 referring to the “API compilable code” and to the “API documentation.” 26 19. 27 The copyrighted Java platform has more than 37 API packages and so 28 does the accused Android platform. As for the 37 API packages that overlap, 9 1 Google agrees that it uses the same names and declarations but contends that its 2 line-by-line implementations are different (with the exception of the rangeCheck 3 lines), a contention not disputed by Oracle. Instead, Oracle contends that Google 4 copied the structure, sequence and organization of the compilable code for the 37 5 API packages as a group. Google agrees that the structure, sequence and 6 organization of the 37 accused API packages in Android is substantially the same 7 as the structure, sequence and organization of the corresponding 37 API packages 8 in Java. Google states, however, that the elements it has used are not infringing 9 and, in any event, its use was protected by a statutory rule permitting anyone to make “fair use” of copyrighted works. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 20. 12 Now, let me tell you the law about names. The copyrights do not cover 13 the names, such as those given to files, packages, classes, and methods, because 14 under the law, names cannot be copyrighted. This applies to the name “java” as 15 well. Although “Java” has been registered as a trademark, there is no trademark 16 claim in this lawsuit. The name java cannot be copyrighted, nor can any other 17 name, whether one or two words or longer in length. While individual names are 18 not protectable on a standalone basis, names must necessarily be used as part of 19 the structure, sequence, and organization and are to that extent protectable by 20 copyright. 21 21. 22 With respect to the API documentation, Oracle contends Google copied 23 the English-language comments in the registered copyrighted work and moved 24 them over to the documentation for the 37 API packages in Android. Google 25 agrees that there are similarities in the wording but, pointing to differences as 26 well, denies that its documentation is a copy. Google further asserts that the 27 similarities are largely the result of the fact that each API carries out the same 28 functions in both systems. Google again asserts the statutory defense of fair use. 10 1 2 22. The issues just discussed center on the API packages. Apart from the API 3 issues, I will now describe a list of specific items that Oracle contends were 4 copied verbatim by Google. Specifically, Oracle contends that Google copied 5 verbatim certain lines of compilable code, namely the rangeCheck method in two 6 files, other source code as compiled into object code in seven “Impl.Java” files 7 and one other file and, finally, certain English-language comments in two other 8 files. Google responds that any verbatim copying by it was excusable under the 9 law as “de minimis.” For purposes of this group of infringement contentions, the structure, sequence and organization is irrelevant and the comparison must be 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 made to the work as a whole as defined in a moment. 12 13 23. Now, I will turn to the more detailed law. In order to prove infringement, 14 Oracle must first prove that Oracle’s work is original and that it is the owner of 15 the part of the work allegedly copied. For your purposes, the parties agree that 16 there are no issues of ownership or originality for you to decide. 17 18 24. Oracle must also prove that Google copied all or a protected part of a 19 copyrighted work owned by Oracle and that the amount of copying was more than 20 de minimis. So, there are two elements Oracle must prove to carry its burden on 21 infringement, namely copying of a protected part and that the part copied was 22 more than de minimis when compared to the work as a whole. These are issues 23 for you to decide. 24 There are two ways to prove copying. One is by proof of direct copying, 25 as where the copyrighted work itself is used to duplicate or restate the same words 26 and symbols on a fresh page. 27 28 The second way is via circumstantial evidence by showing the accused had access to the copyrighted passages in question and that there are substantial 11 1 similarities or, in certain instances, virtual identity between the copyrighted work 2 and the accused work. The virtual identity test is used when the subject under 3 consideration is a narrow one and we would expect certain terms and phrases to 4 be used. This is in contrast to, for example, a fictional work in which there will 5 be a broad range of creativity, in which case it is necessary only to prove 6 substantial similarity. In this trial, you should use the substantial similarity test 7 for all such comparisons except for those involving the API documentation, in 8 which case you should use the virtual identity test. This is because the 9 documentation for the API packages describe narrow technical functions and it is to be expected that some of the same words and phrases would likely be used. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 25. To determine whether the copyrighted work and the accused work are 13 substantially similar, or where appropriate, virtually identical, you must compare 14 the works as a whole. I will define the works as a whole in a moment. 15 However, in comparing the works as a whole, you cannot consider 16 similarities to the unprotectable elements of Oracle’s works. I have instructed 17 you about the protectable and unprotectable elements of Oracle’s work. 18 19 26. Now, I will explain the law governing Google’s defense based on the 20 statutory right of anyone to make “fair use” of copyrighted works. Anyone may 21 use any copyrighted work in a reasonable way under the circumstances without 22 the consent of the copyright owner if it would advance the public interest. Such 23 use of a copyrighted work is called a “fair use.” The owner of a copyright cannot 24 prevent others from making a fair use of the owner’s copyrighted work. For 25 example, fair use may include use for criticism, comment, news reporting, 26 teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. 27 Google has the burden of proving this defense by a preponderance of the 28 evidence. 12 1 In determining whether the use made of the work was fair, you should 2 consider the following factors: 3 1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether 4 such use is of a commercial nature, for nonprofit 5 educational purposes, and whether such work is 6 transformative (meaning whether Google’s use added 7 something new, with a further purpose or different 8 character, altering the copied work with new expression, 9 meaning, or message). Commercial use cuts against fair 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 use while transformative use supports fair use; 2. The nature of the copyrighted work, including whether the 12 work is creative (which cuts against fair use), functional 13 (which supports fair use), or factual (which also supports 14 fair use); 15 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in 16 relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. The greater 17 the quantity and quality of the work taken, the less that fair 18 use applies; and 19 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value 20 of the copyrighted work. Impairment of the copyrighted 21 work cuts against fair use. 22 All the factors should be weighed together to decide whether Google’s use 23 was fair use or not. It is up to you to decide how much weight to give each factor 24 but you must consider all factors. If you find that Google proved by a 25 preponderance of the evidence that Google made a fair use of Oracle’s work, your 26 verdict should be for Google on that question in the Special Verdict Form. 27 28 13 1 27 2 With respect to the infringement issues concerning the rangeCheck and 3 other similar files, Google agrees that the accused lines of code and comments 4 came from the copyrighted material but contends that the amounts involved were 5 so negligible as to be de minimis and thus should be excused. To be clear with 6 respect to a different issue. The parties are in agreement that the structure, 7 sequence, and organization of the API packages is more than de minimis. 8 9 28 Copying that is considered “de minimis” is not infringing. Copying is “de minimis” only if it is so meager and fragmentary that compared to the work as a 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 whole the average audience would not recognize the appropriation. You must 12 consider the qualitative and quantitative significance of the copied portions in 13 relation to the work as a whole. The burden is on Oracle to prove that the copied 14 material was more than de minimis. 15 The relevant comparison is the copied portion contrasted to the work as a 16 whole, as drawn from the copyrighted work, not contrasted to the accused 17 infringer’s work as a whole. For example, if an infringing excerpt is copied from 18 a book, it is not excused from infringement merely because the infringer includes 19 the excerpt in a much larger work of its own. 20 21 29. In your deliberations, you will need to make certain comparisons to the 22 “work as a whole.” It is my job to isolate and identify for you the “work as a 23 whole.” You must take my identification as controlling if and when this comes 24 up in your deliberations. This issue arises when (1) comparing Oracle’s work and 25 Google’s work for similarity under both substantial similarity and virtual identity 26 standards, (2) deciding whether Google copied only a de minimis amount of 27 Oracle’s work, and (3) evaluating the third factor of fair use: the amount and 28 substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 14 1 Although you have seen that the copyright registrations cover a large 2 volume of work, the entire registered work is not the work as a whole for these 3 purposes. This may seem odd to you, so let me give an example. An entire 4 magazine issue may be copyrighted but a specific article or advertisement or 5 photograph may be the relevant work as a whole, depending on what was 6 allegedly copied. 7 For purposes of this case, I have determined that the “work as a whole” Form, the “work as a whole” constitutes all of the compilable code associated 10 with all of the 166 API packages (not just the 37) in the registered work. This 11 For the Northern District of California means the following: For purposes of Question No. 1 in the Special Verdict 9 United States District Court 8 excludes the virtual machine. Similarly, for the purposes of Question No. 2 in the 12 Special Verdict Form, the “work as a whole” means the contents (including 13 names, declarations and English-language comments) of the documentation for all 14 of the 166 API packages (not just the 37) in the registered work. For purposes of 15 Question No. 3, the “work as a whole” is the compilable code for the individual 16 file except for the last two files listed in Question No. 3, in which case the “work 17 as a whole” is the compilable code and all the English-language comments in the 18 same file. 19 20 30. Unless you find fair use, de minimis, or non-infringement in Google’s 21 favor, Google had no right to copy any elements of the Java platform protected by 22 copyright unless it had a written license to do so from Sun or Oracle or had a 23 written sub-license to do so from a third party who had a license from Sun or 24 Oracle conferring the right to grant such sub-licenses. The burden would be on 25 Google to prove it had any such express license or sublicense rights. But in this 26 trial it makes no such contention. Put differently, if Google claims a license from 27 a third party, Google has the burden to prove that the third party itself had the 28 proper right and authority from Sun or Oracle as to any of the copyrights owned 15 1 by Sun or Oracle and used by Google, for Google could acquire from the third 2 party no greater right than the third party itself had in the first place. Similarly, if 3 Google contends that Oracle or Sun had dedicated elements protected by 4 copyright to the public domain for free and open use, the burden would be on 5 Google to prove such a public dedication but the parties agree that that issue is for 6 me to decide, not for you as the jury to decide. This statement of the law 7 regarding licenses is simply to put some of the evidence you heard in context. 8 9 31. When you begin your deliberations, you should elect one member of the jury as your foreperson. That person will preside over the deliberations and speak 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 for you here in court. I recommend that you select a foreperson who will be good 12 at leading a fair and balanced discussion of the evidence and the issues. 13 You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement 14 if you can do so. Your verdict as to each claim and each defense, if any, must be 15 unanimous. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so 16 only after you have considered all of the evidence, discussed it fully with the 17 other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. 18 Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you 19 that you should. Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is 20 right. It is important that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, 21 only if each of you can do so after having made your own conscientious decision. 22 Do not change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the evidence simply 23 to reach a verdict. 24 I will give you a special verdict form to guide your deliberations. 25 26 27 28 16 1 2 32. Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took 3 notes, you should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to 4 assist your memory. You should not be overly influenced by the notes. When 5 you go into the jury room, the Clerk will bring in to you the trial exhibits received 6 into evidence to be available for your deliberations. The Clerk will also provide 7 you with an index to them. 8 33. 9 As I noted before the trial began, when you retire to the jury room to deliberate, you will have with you the following things: 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 1. All of the exhibits received into evidence; 12 2. An index of the exhibits; 13 3. A work copy of these jury instructions for each of you; 14 4. A work copy of the verdict form for each of you; and 15 5. An official verdict form. 16 When you recess at the end of a day, please place your work materials in 17 the brown envelope provided and cover up any easels with your work notes so 18 that if my staff needs to go into the jury room, they will not even inadvertently see 19 any of your work in progress. 20 21 34. A United States Marshal will be outside the jury-room door during your 22 deliberations. If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate 23 with me, you may send a note through the marshal, signed by your foreperson or 24 by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt 25 to communicate with me except by a signed writing, and I will respond to the jury 26 concerning the case only in writing or here in open court. If you send out a 27 question, I will consult with the lawyers before answering it, which may take 28 some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to 17 1 any question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone — including me — how 2 the jury stands, numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a 3 unanimous verdict or have been discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in 4 any note to the Court. 5 35. 6 Now you are going to begin your deliberations. As mentioned earlier, you 7 must stay until 1:00 P.M. today. If you do not reach a verdict by the end of today, 8 then you will resume your deliberations tomorrow and thereafter. The Court 9 recommends that you deliberate at least from 8:00 A.M to 4:00 P.M tomorrow and thereafter. Your schedule is up to you. You may, of course, take reasonable 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 lunch breaks. 12 It is very important that you let the Clerk know in advance what hours you 13 will be deliberating so that the lawyers may be present in the courthouse at any 14 time the jury is deliberating. 15 16 36. You may only deliberate when all of you are together. This means, for 17 instance, that in the mornings before everyone has arrived or when someone steps 18 out of the jury room to go to the restroom, you may not discuss the case. As well, 19 the admonition that you are not to speak to anyone outside the jury room about 20 this case still applies during your deliberation. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18 1 37. 2 After you have reached a unanimous agreement on a verdict, your 3 foreperson will fill in, date and sign the verdict form and advise the Court that 4 you have reached a verdict. The foreperson should hold onto the filled-in verdict 5 form and bring it into the courtroom when the jury returns the verdict. Thank you 6 for your careful attention. The case is now in your hands. You may now retire to 7 the jury room and begin your deliberations. 8 9 Dated: April 30, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?