Allen v. Radio Shack Corporation et al

Filing 122

DRAFT JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM (Attachments: # 1 Special Verdict Form)(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 No. C 11-03110 WHA 10 11 Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court FRANK ALLEN, 12 v. 13 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, 14 Defendant. 15 / 16 COURT’S PROPOSED CHARGE TO THE JURY 17 AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 18 Appended hereto are copies of the draft charge to the jury and special verdict form given 19 to both sides on FEBRUARY 26, 2013, for discussion with the Court at the charging conference 20 on FEBRUARY 27, 2013 at 7:30 A.M. The proposed charge is based on the way the trial has 21 actually developed, taking into account issues that have emerged and receded and concessions 22 by counsel. Subject to the upcoming charging conference, the Court believes the proposed 23 charge adequately and fairly covers all issues actually still in play. Therefore, in order to give 24 the district judge a fair opportunity to correct any error as matters now stand, counsel must, at 25 the charging conference, bring to the judge’s attention any addition, subtraction or modification 26 or other objections or proposal for the jury instructions. Otherwise, all such points shall be 27 deemed waived and it will not be sufficient merely to argue after the verdict that a proposed 28 instruction filed earlier in the proceedings somehow fell by the wayside. Rather, any such proposal that counsel still cares about must be raised anew at the charging conference. The 1 charging conference shall be conducted so as to give full and fair opportunity for counsel to 2 raise any and all objections and proposals. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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 2 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 FRANK ALLEN, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, No. C 11-03110 WHA v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION, Defendant. / 15 16 17 18 19 20 [DRAFT] FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY AND SPECIAL VERDICT FORM 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 2 3 1. Members of the jury, it is now my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury room for you to consult as necessary. 4 It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence and to decide whether the side with 5 the burden of proof has carried that burden, applying the elements of proof required by the law, 6 elements I will provide you in a moment. In following my instructions, you must follow all of 7 them and not single out some and ignore others. You must not read into these instructions or 8 into anything the Court may have said or done as suggesting what verdict you should return — 9 that is a matter entirely up to you. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 2. The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of: 12 1. 13 by depositions; 14 2. The exhibits received into evidence; and 15 3. Any stipulated facts. The sworn testimony of witnesses, whether presented in person or 16 17 18 19 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 evidence. The 20 lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their opening statements, closing 21 arguments and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not 22 evidence itself. If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have 23 stated them, your memory of them controls. 24 2. A suggestion in a question by counsel or the Court is not evidence unless 25 it is adopted by the answer. A question by itself is not evidence. Consider it only to the 26 extent it is adopted by the answer. 27 28 3. Testimony or exhibits that have been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to disregard, are not evidence and must not be considered. In 4 1 addition, some testimony and exhibits have been received only for a limited purpose; 2 where I have given a limiting instruction, you must follow it. 3 4. Anything you may have seen or heard when the Court was not in session 4 is not evidence. 5 6 4. Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such 7 as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard, or did. 8 Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. 9 By way of example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you may find from that fact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a turned-on 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 garden hose, may explain the presence of water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you decide 12 that a fact has been proved by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all the evidence in the 13 light of reason, experience and common sense. You should consider both kinds of evidence. 14 The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial 15 evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence. 16 17 5. In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and 18 which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it or 19 none of it. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account: 20 21 22 1. The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to; 23 2. The quality of the witness’ memory; 24 3. The witness’ manner while testifying; 25 4. The witness’ interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or 26 prejudice; 27 5. Whether other evidence contradicted the witness’ testimony; 28 5 1 2 6. The reasonableness of the witness’ testimony in light of all the evidence; and 3 7. Any other factors that bear on believability. 4 6. 5 You are not required to decide any issue according to the testimony of a number of 6 witnesses, which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a smaller number or other 7 evidence, which is more convincing to you. The testimony of one witness worthy of belief is 8 sufficient to prove any fact. This does not mean that you are free to disregard the testimony of 9 any witness merely from caprice or prejudice, or from a desire to favor either side. It does mean that you must not decide anything by simply counting the number of witnesses who have 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 testified on the opposing sides. The test is not the number of witnesses but the convincing force 12 of the evidence. You should base your decision on all of the evidence regardless of which party 13 presented it. 14 15 7. You have heard testimony from witnesses referred to as “expert witnesses.” These are 16 persons who, because of education or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the 17 reasons for their opinions. Opinion testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. 18 You may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering 19 the witness’ education and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all the other 20 evidence in the case. If an expert witness was not present at the events in question, his or her 21 opinion is necessarily based on an assumed set of circumstances. In evaluating the opinion 22 during the trial, you should take into account the extent to which you do agree or do not agree 23 with the circumstances assumed by the expert witness. 24 25 8. A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or by evidence 26 that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something or has failed to say or do 27 something that is inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony. If you believe any witness 28 6 1 has been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony of that witness such 2 credibility, if any, you think it deserves. 3 4 9. Discrepancies in a witness’ testimony or between a witness’ testimony and that of other 5 witnesses do not necessarily mean that such witness should be discredited. Inability to recall 6 and innocent misrecollection are common. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction 7 sometimes will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter 8 or only to something trivial should be considered by you. 9 However, a witness willfully false in one part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely on 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe that the probability of truth favors 12 his or her testimony in other particulars. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10. In determining what inferences to draw from evidence you may consider, among other things, a party’s failure to explain or deny such evidence. 11. All parties are equal before the law and a corporation is entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any party. Under the law, a corporation is considered to be a person. It can only act through its 20 employees, agents, directors, or officers. Therefore, a corporation is responsible for the acts of 21 its employees, agents, directors, or officers performed within the scope of authority. 22 An agent is a person who performs services for the corporation under an express or 23 implied agreement and who is subject to its control or right to control the manner and means of 24 performing the services. One may be an agent without receiving compensation for services. 25 26 12. Now I will address the burden of proof. In this case, the preponderance of the evidence 27 standard applies on all sides, so whoever has the burden of proof on an issue must carry that 28 issue by a preponderance of the evidence. When a party has the burden of proof on any claim 7 1 by a preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the 2 claim is more probably true than not true. To put it differently, if you were to put the evidence 3 favoring a plaintiff and the evidence favoring a defendant on opposite sides of a scale, the party 4 with the burden of proof on the issue would have to make the scale tip somewhat toward its 5 side. If the party fails to meet this burden, then the party with the burden of proof loses on the 6 issue. Preponderance of the evidence basically means “more likely than not.” 7 When a party has the burden of proving any claim by clear and convincing evidence, it 8 means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim is highly probable. This is a 9 higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 13. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 On any claim, if you find that plaintiff carried his burden of proof as to each element of 12 a particular claim, your verdict should be for plaintiff on that claim. If you find that plaintiff 13 did not carry his burden of proof as to each element, you must find against plaintiff on that 14 claim. This same principle also supplies to defendant on claims for which it has the burden of 15 proof. 16 17 14. I will now turn to the law that applies to this case. First, I will give you a brief summary 18 of the claims and defenses at issue in this case. The plaintiff, Frank Allen, was a store manager 19 at defendant RadioShack. He claims that defendant discriminated against him on the basis of 20 his race and/or age. He also claims that he was retaliated against for complaining about 21 discrimination and/or for refusing to follow orders to terminate other African American and 22 Hispanic employees. Lastly, plaintiff claims that he was harmed by defendant’s outrageous 23 conduct that was intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress. RadioShack claims that it 24 discharged plaintiff for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. 25 15. 26 The issue in this case is not whether plaintiff was treated fairly or whether you agree 27 with the management style of defendant RadioShack. Rather, the issue in this case concerns 28 8 1 plaintiff’s specific claims of discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and intentional 2 infliction of emotional distress. 3 4 16. An employment relationship may be ended by either the employer or the employee, at long as an employer is not motivated by race, age, or retaliation for complaining about race or 7 age discrimination, an employer may terminate an at-will employee for any business reason it 8 wishes. Under the law, you may not second guess an employer’s good-faith business reason for 9 a discharge unless plaintiff proves that the discharge was substantially motivated by the race or 10 age of the employee or to retaliate against the employee for complaining to management about 11 For the Northern District of California any time, for any lawful reason, or for no reason at all. This is called “at-will employment.” So 6 United States District Court 5 age or race discrimination against him or others. 12 17. 13 14 To prevail on his claim for discrimination on the basis of race, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 15 1. That defendant RadioShack was an employer; 16 2. That plaintiff was an employee of defendant; 17 3. That defendant discharged plaintiff; 18 4. That plaintiff’s race was a substantial motivating factor for the discharge; 19 5. That plaintiff was harmed; and 20 6. That the discharge was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. 21 22 23 18. To prevail on his claim for discrimination on the basis of age, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 24 1. That defendant RadioShack was an employer; 25 2. That plaintiff was an employee of defendant; 26 3. That defendant discharged plaintiff; 27 4. That plaintiff was age 40 or older at the time of the discharge; 28 5. That plaintiff’s age was a substantial motivating factor for the discharge; 9 1 6. That defendant was harmed; and 2 7. That the discharge was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm. 3 4 5 6 19. To prevail on his retaliation claim, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That plaintiff engaged in or was engaging in an activity protected under 7 California law, namely that he made a complaint of discrimination to his employer or that he 8 refused to follow orders to discharge other African-American and Hispanic RadioShack 9 employees; 2. That defendant discharged plaintiff; 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 3. That the protected activity was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse 12 employment action; 13 4. That plaintiff was harmed; and 14 5. That defendant’s discharge of plaintiff was a substantial factor in causing 15 plaintiff’s harm. 16 20. 17 To prevail on his claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, plaintiff 18 has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 19 1. That plaintiff was employed by defendant RadioShack; 20 2. That defendant discharged plaintiff; 21 3. That plaintiff’s age, race, complaints regarding discrimination and/or refusal to 22 terminate Hispanic or African-American employees at RadioShack was a substantial motivating 23 factor for plaintiff’s discharge; and 24 25 26 4. That defendant’s discharge caused plaintiff harm. 21. You have heard evidence concerning whether or not RadioShack followed or departed 27 from its disciplinary procedure. In this case, there is no claim against RadioShack for violation 28 of company disciplinary procedure. You may consider this evidence only insofar as it bears on 10 1 the claims in suit, which claims concern a discharge substantially motivated by discrimination 2 on the basis of age or race or retaliation. Nor is there any claim that the discharge was unfair. 3 Regardless of whether or not the discharge was unfair, the claims in suit require that plaintiff 4 prove, among other things, that the termination was substantially motivated by age, race or 5 retaliation. 6 22. 7 Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the true cause or a discrimination based on plaintiff’s age and/or race or retaliation against plaintiff for engaging in 10 a protected activity. Although you cannot find defendant liable for discrimination or retaliation 11 For the Northern District of California substantial motivating factor for RadioShack’s discharge of plaintiff was intentional 9 United States District Court 8 based solely on a belief that the reasons defendant gave for discharging plaintiff were false or 12 contrived, you may consider whether that circumstance suggests that defendant’s proffered 13 reasons for discharging plaintiff were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. 14 15 16 23. To prevail on his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 17 1. That defendant’s conduct was outrageous; 18 2. That defendant intended to cause plaintiff emotional distress; 19 3. That plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress; and 20 4. That defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s severe 21 emotional distress. 22 23 24. “Outrageous conduct” is conduct so extreme that it goes beyond all possible bounds of 24 decency. Conduct is outrageous if a reasonable person would regard the conduct as intolerable 25 in a civilized community. Outrageous conduct does not include trivialities such as indignities, 26 annoyances, hurt feelings, or bad manners that a reasonable person is expected to endure. In 27 deciding whether defendant’s conduct was outrageous, you may consider, among other factors, 28 the following: 11 1 2 3 4 1. Whether defendant abused a position of authority or a relationship that gave it real or apparent power to affect plaintiff’s interests; 2. Whether defendant knew that plaintiff was particularly vulnerable to emotional distress; and 5 3. 6 mental distress. Whether defendant knew that its conduct would likely result in harm due to 7 25. 8 Emotional distress includes suffering, anguish, fright, horror, nervousness, grief, 9 anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. “Severe emotional distress” is not mild or brief; it must be so substantial or long lasting that no reasonable person in a civilized society should 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 be expected to bear it. Plaintiff is not required to prove physical injury to recover damages for 12 severe emotional distress. 13 26. 14 If you find for plaintiff on any of the foregoing claims for discrimination on the basis of 15 race and/or age, retaliation, or wrongful termination in violation of public policy, you will need 16 to decide the following. The following defense does not apply to plaintiff’s claim for 17 intentional infliction of emotional distress. 18 Defendant claims that it would have discharged plaintiff anyway if it had known that he 19 had engaged in misconduct that, in and of itself, would have been a sufficient basis for 20 discharge. To prevail on this defense, RadioShack must prove each of the following elements 21 by a preponderance of the evidence: 22 1. That plaintiff engaged in misconduct; 23 2. That plaintiff’s alleged misconduct was sufficiently severe that defendant would 24 25 have discharged him because of that misconduct alone had defendant known of it; and 3. That defendant would have discharged plaintiff for his alleged misconduct 26 27 28 12 1 as a matter of settled company policy. 2 3 27. If you find for the plaintiff on any of his claims then you must address the question of 4 damages. It is the duty of the Court to instruct you about the measure of compensatory 5 damages. By instructing you on damages, the Court does not mean to suggest for which party 6 your verdict should be rendered. There are different measures of damages for the different 7 claims. The party seeking damages has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of 8 the evidence. 9 You are not permitted to include speculative damages, which means compensation for 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 28. future loss or harm which, although possible, is conjectural or not reasonably certain. Your 12 award must be based upon evidence and not upon speculation, guesswork or conjecture. 13 However, if you determine that a party is entitled to recover, you should compensate a party for 14 the loss or harm caused by the injury in question which the evidence shows is reasonably 15 certain to be suffered in the future. 16 17 29. Any award for future economic damages must be for the present cash value of those 18 damages. Present cash value means the sum of money needed now, which, when invested at a 19 reasonable rate of return, will pay future damages at the times and in the amounts that you find 20 the damages would have been received. 21 The rate of return to be applied in determining present cash value should be the interest 22 that can reasonably be expected from safe investments that can be made by a person of ordinary 23 prudence, who has ordinary financial experience and skill. 24 25 26 27 28 13 1 30. 2 You will be asked to decide whether defendant is liable to plaintiff under the legal 3 theories described above, namely: 4 1. Discrimination on the basis of race; 5 2. Discrimination on the basis of age; 6 3. Retaliation; 7 4. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and 8 5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress. 9 The following items of damages are recoverable only once under all of the above legal theories: 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 1. Past lost wages and benefits; 12 2. Future lost wages and benefits; 13 3. Past emotional distress; and 14 4. Future emotional distress. 15 To recover damages for past lost earnings, plaintiff must prove the amount of wages and 16 17 18 19 benefits that he has lost to date. To recover damages for future lost earnings, plaintiff must prove the amount of wages and benefits he will be reasonably certain to lose in the future as a result of the injury. As to damages for emotional distress, no fixed standard exists for deciding the amount 20 of these damages. You must use your judgment to decide a reasonable amount based on the 21 evidence and your common sense. 22 To recover for future emotional distress, plaintiff must prove that he is reasonably 23 certain to suffer that harm. For future emotional distress, you must determine the amount in 24 current dollars paid at the time of judgment that will compensate plaintiff for future emotional 25 distress. This amount of damages should not be further reduced to present cash value because 26 that reduction should only be performed with respect to damages for past or future lost wages 27 and benefits. 28 31. 14 1 Plaintiff also seeks an award of punitive damages in this case against defendant. To 2 recover punitive damages, plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence 3 that defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice in engaging in the conduct on which he 4 bases his claim that defendant violated his rights. If you find that plaintiff suffered actual 5 injury, harm or damage caused by any illegal conduct of defendant, you must decide in addition 6 whether to award punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishment. 7 To recover punitive damages, plaintiff has the burden of proving by clear and 8 convincing evidence that defendant was guilty of oppression, fraud or malice in engaging in the 9 conduct on which he bases his claim that defendant violated his rights. “Clear and convincing” evidence means evidence of such convincing force that it 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 demonstrates, in contrast to the opposing evidence, a high probability of the truth of the facts 12 for which it is offered as proof. Such evidence requires a higher standard of proof than proof by 13 a preponderance of the evidence. 14 “Malice” means conduct which was intended to cause injury to plaintiff or despicable 15 conduct which was carried on with a willful and conscious disregard for the rights or safety of 16 others. 17 18 19 “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights. “Despicable conduct” is conduct which is so vile, base, contemptible, miserable, 20 wretched or loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent 21 people. A person acts with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others when he or she 22 is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and willfully and 23 deliberately fails to avoid those consequences. 24 “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit or concealment of a material fact 25 known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a 26 person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. 27 28 Whether punitive damages should be imposed, and if so, the amount thereof, is left to your sound discretion, exercised without passion or prejudice. If you decide that punitive 15 1 damages should be awarded, you will have a short supplemental proceeding immediately 2 following your verdict in order to receive more evidence and argument as to the amount that 3 should be awarded. 4 32. 5 6 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 for you here in court. 7 You will then discuss the case with your fellow jurors to reach agreement if you can do must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after you have considered all of the 10 evidence, discussed it fully with the other jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. 11 For the Northern District of California so. Your verdict as to each claim and as to damages, if any, must be unanimous. Each of you 9 United States District Court 8 Do not be afraid to change your opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. 12 Do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right. It is important that you 13 attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of course, only if each of you can do so after having 14 made your own conscientious decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and 15 effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict. 16 I will give you a special verdict form to guide your deliberations. Although the special 17 verdict form analyzes the questions in numerical order, you may consider the questions out of 18 sequence so long as your answers conform to the directions on the form concerning which 19 questions you must ultimately answer and which are only conditional depending on your other 20 answers. 21 33. 22 Some of you have taken notes during the trial. Whether or not you took notes, you 23 should rely on your own memory of what was said. Notes are only to assist your memory. You 24 should not be overly influenced by the notes. 25 34. 26 When you retire to the jury room to deliberate, you will soon receive the following 27 28 things: 1. All of the exhibits received into evidence; 16 1 2. AN INDEX OF THE EXHIBITS IF THE LAWYERS ARE ABLE TO STIPULATE 2 AS TO ITS FORM; 3 3. A work copy of these jury instructions for each of you; 4 4. A work copy of the verdict form for each of you; and 5 5. An official verdict form. 6 Remember that none of these items are evidence except the exhibits. 7 When you recess at the end of a day, please place your work materials in the brown 8 envelope provided and cover up any easels with your work notes so that if my staff needs to go 9 into the jury room, they will not even inadvertently see any of your work in progress. 35. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 In your deliberations it is usually premature to take a straw vote early on. This is due to 12 the risk of jury members expressing a premature opinion and then, out of pride, digging in their 13 heels. Rather it is usually better to discuss the evidence, pro and con, on the various issues 14 before proceeding to take even a straw vote. In this way, all the viewpoints will be on the table 15 before anyone expresses a vote. These are merely recommendations, however, and it is entirely 16 up to you to decide on how you wish to deliberate. 17 36. 18 A United States Marshal will be outside the jury-room door during your deliberations. 19 If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note 20 through the Marshal, signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. No 21 member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me except by a signed writing, via 22 the Marshal, and I will respond to the jury concerning the case only in writing or here in open 23 court. If you send out a question, I will consult with the lawyers before answering it, which may 24 take some time. You may continue your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any 25 question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone — including me — how the jury stands, 26 numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been 27 discharged. Do not disclose any vote count in any note to the Court. 28 17 1 2 37. You have been required to be here each day from 7:45 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Now that you 3 are going to begin your deliberations, however, you are free to modify this schedule within 4 reason. For example, if you wish to continue deliberating in the afternoons after a reasonable 5 lunch break, that is fine. The Court does, however, recommend that you continue to start your 6 deliberations by 8:00 A.M. If you do not reach a verdict by the end of today, then you will 7 resume your deliberations tomorrow and thereafter. 8 9 It is very important that you let us know via note what hours you will be deliberating so that we may conform our schedule to yours. 38. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 You may only deliberate when all of you are together. This means, for instance, that in 12 the mornings before everyone has arrived or when someone steps out of the jury room to go to 13 the restroom, you may not discuss the case. As well, the admonition that you are not to speak to 14 anyone outside the jury room about this case still applies during your deliberation. 15 39. 16 After you have reached a unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill in, 17 date and sign the verdict form and advise the Court through the Marshal that you have reached a 18 verdict. The foreperson should hold onto the filled-in verdict form and bring it into the 19 courtroom when the jury returns the verdict. Thank you for your careful attention. The case is 20 now in your hands. You may now retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations. 21 22 23 Dated: [ONLY SIGN AND DATE AFTER INSTRUCTION READ TO THE JURY] WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 18

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?