Torres v. Saba et al

Filing 261

VERDICT FORM (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/13/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARIO TORRES,
Plaintiff,

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

VERDICT FORM

v.

10

MIKE HANSEN and DANIEL SMITH,

11

Defendants.

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

Case No. 16-cv-06607-SI

1

CLAIM 1 – WARRANTLESS ENTRY OF APARTMENT

2

1. As to Claim 1, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

3

defendant Mike Hansen and/or Daniel Smith violated plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

4

rights when the officers entered the apartment on July 4, 2012, without a warrant?

5
Officer Hansen

6
7
8

Yes ________

No ________

Officer Smith
Yes ________
No ________
If your answer to both parts of this question was “no,” please skip to Question 5. Otherwise,
please answer the next question.

9
10

2. As to Claim 1, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the defendant(s) caused him injury, damage or harm?

12
13

Officer Hansen

Yes ________

No ________

14

Officer Smith
Yes ________
No ________
If your answer to both parts of this question was “no,” you must award nominal damages of
$1, and then skip to Question 4. Nominal damages: $_____________

15

If either answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.

16
17

3. As to Claim 1, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario

18

Torres.

19
20

$ ________
Please answer the next question.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

4.

As to Claim 1, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive or committed in reckless disregard
of his constitutional rights?
Officer Hansen

Yes ________

No ________

Officer Smith

Yes ________

No ________

Please answer the next question.

28
2

1

CLAIM 2 – EXCESSIVE FORCE PRIOR TO HANDCUFFING

2

5. As to Claim 2, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

3

defendant Mike Hansen and/or Daniel Smith used excessive force against him inside the

4

apartment prior to plaintiff being handcuffed?

5
Officer Hansen

6
7
8

Yes ________

No ________

Officer Smith
Yes ________
No ________
If your answer to both questions was “no,” please skip to Question 9. Otherwise, please
answer the next question.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

6. As to Claim 2, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant(s) caused him injury, damage or harm?
Officer Hansen

12
13
14

Yes ________

No ________

Officer Smith
Yes ________
No ________
If your answer to both parts of this question was “no,” you must award nominal damages of
$1, and then skip to Question 8. Nominal damages: $_____________
If either answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.

15
16
17
18
19

7. As to Claim 2, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario
Torres.
$ ________
Please answer the next question.

20
21
22
23
24
25

8. As to Claim 2, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendants’ conduct was malicious, oppressive or committed in reckless disregard of his
constitutional rights?
Officer Hansen

Yes ________

No ________

Officer Smith

Yes ________

No ________

26
27

Please answer the next question.

28
3

1

CLAIM 3 – EXCESSIVE FORCE AFTER HANDCUFFING

2

9. As to Claim 3, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

3

defendant Michael Hansen used excessive force against him inside the apartment after

4

plaintiff was handcuffed?

5
6
7

Yes ________
No ________
If your answer was “no,” please skip to Question 13. Otherwise, please answer the next
question.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

10. As to Claim 3, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that
defendant Michael Hansen caused him injury, damage or harm?
Yes ________
No ________
If your answer to this question was “no,” you must award nominal damages of $1, and then
skip to Question 12. Nominal damages: $_____________
If your answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.

14
15
16
17
18

11. As to Claim 3, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario
Torres.
$ ________
Please go to the next question.

19
20

11. As to Claim 3, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that

21

defendants Mike Hansen’s conduct was malicious, oppressive or committed in reckless

22

disregard of his constitutional rights?

23

Yes ________

No ________

24
25
26
27
28
4

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

1
2

12. If you answered “no” to all parts of Questions 4, 8 and 12, do not consider any of the

3

remaining questions and go to the end of the verdict form. Please have the jury

4

foreperson sign and date the form, and return it to the courtroom deputy. If you answered

5

“yes” to any part of Questions 4, 8 or 12, please answer the next question.

6
7
8
9
10

13. State the amount of punitive damages that you award.
Officer Hansen

$ ________

Officer Smith

$ ________

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Please have the foreperson sign and date the form.

14
15

Dated: __________________

___________________________
Foreperson

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5