Binkovich et al v. Barthelmy et al

Filing 77

REVISED FINAL VERDICT FORM. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on April 28, 2014. (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

ALEKSANDR BINKOVICH,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER BARTHELEMY, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
REVISED FINAL VERDICT FORM

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Date: April 28, 2014

____________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

1
2

SECTION 1: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT – UNREASONABLE SEIZURE
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:

3
1-A. Did any individual defendant intentionally seize Aleksandr Binkovich?
4
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

6

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

7

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

5

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

If your answer to Question 1-A as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 1-B for that
defendant but for no others.
If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section 2.
1-B. Did the defendant have a reasonable suspicion that Binkovich was engaged in
cccccccccccriminal conduct?

11
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

12
13
14
15
16

If your answer to Question 1-B as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 1-C.
If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section 2.
1-C. Was either the length or the scope of the seizure unreasonable?

17
Yes _____ No _____
18
19

GO TO SECTION 2.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

1
2

SECTION 2: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT – EXCESSIVE FORCE
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:

3
2-A. Did any defendant use excessive force against Binkovich?
4
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

6

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

7

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

5

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

If your answer to Question 2-A as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2-B for that
defendant but for no others.
If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section 3.
2-B. Was Binkovich harmed by any defendant’s excessive force?
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

If your answer to Question 2-B as to any defendant is “Yes,” then answer Question 2-C.
If you answered “No” to all defendants, go to Section 3.
2-C. Was any defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Binkovich?
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

20
GO TO SECTION 3.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

1
2

SECTION 3: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY – POLICY, PRACTICE OR CUSTOM
We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:

3
3-A. We, the jury, have answered:
4
5
6
7

“Yes” to one or more subparts of the following questions:
i.

_______ Question 1-C (§ 1983 – Unreasonable Seizure)

ii.

_______ Question 2-C (§ 1983 – Excessive Force)
OR

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

“No” to one or more subparts of the following question:
i.

_______ Question 1-B (§ 1983 – Unreasonable Seizure)

If you checked any question under Question 3-A, then answer Question 3-B.
If not, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this
form.
3-B. In seizing and/or using excessive force against Binkovich, was any defendant acting
cccccccccipursuant to an expressly adopted official policy or longstanding practice or custom of
cccccccccithe City of San Jose?

15
Yes _____ No _____
16
17
18
19
20
21

If your answer to Question 3-B is “Yes,” then answer Question 3-C.
If your answer to Question 3-B is “No,” go to Section 4.
3-C. Was the City of San Jose’s policy or custom the moving force behind a deprivation of
Binkovich’s Fourth Amendment rights?
Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION 4.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

SECTION 4: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
PUBLIC ENTITY LIABILITY – FAILURE TO TRAIN

1
2
3
4
5

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
4-A. Was the City of San Jose’s training program inadequate to train its officers to properly
handle usual and recurring situations?
Yes _____ No _____

6

If your answer to Question 4-A is “Yes.”, then answer Question 4-B.

7

If you answered “No,” go to Section 5.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

4-B. Did the City of San Jose know, or should it have been obvious to it, that the inadequate
training program was likely to result in a deprivation of Binkovich’s Fourth
Amendment rights?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 4-B is “Yes,” then answer Question 4-C. If not, go to Section 5.
4-C. Was the failure to provide adequate training the cause of the deprivation of Binkovich’s
Fourth Amendment rights?
Yes _____ No _____
GO TO SECTION 5.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

SECTION 5: DAMAGES

1
2
3

We, the jury, unanimously answer the Questions submitted to us as follows:
5-A. What is the total amount of damages, if any, suffered by Binkovich? Do not award
duplicate damages for the same harm suffered from multiple claims.

4
$ __________________
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

5-B. Did Binkovich use reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages?
Yes _____ No _____
If your answer to Question 5-B is “No,” then answer Question 5-C.
If your answer to Question 5-B is “Yes,” go to Question 5-D.
5-C. How much of Binkovich’s damages could have been mitigated by Binkovich’s
reasonable efforts?
$ __________________
5-D. We, the jury, have answered
“Yes” to one or more of the following questions with respect to the following
defendants:
i. Question 1-C (§ 1983 – Unreasonable Seizure)
_____ Bruce Barthelemy
_____ Louis Grondahl
_____ Terry Craig
ii. Question 2-C (§ 1983 – Excessive Force)

20

_____ Bruce Barthelemy

21

_____ Louis Grondahl

22

_____ Terry Craig

23

OR

24
25
26
27

“No” with respect to the following defendants on Question 1-B (§ 1983 – Unreasonable
Seizure):
_____ Bruce Barthelemy
_____ Louis Grondahl
_____ Terry Craig

28
6
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM

1
2
3
4

If you checked any question for any defendant under Question 5-D, go to Question 5-E and answer
as to each of the officers whom you checked.
If not, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this
form.
5-E. Did the officer(s) engage in malice, oppression, or in reckless disregard of Binkovich’s
rights with respect to any of the claims that you checked in Question 5-D?
i. Bruce Barthelemy:

Yes _____ No _____

6

ii. Louis Grondahl:

Yes _____ No _____

7

iii. Terry Craig:

Yes _____ No _____

5

8
9

If you checked “Yes” for any defendant under Question 5-E, then answer Question 5-F as to that
defendant only.
If not, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the foreperson sign and date this
form.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
5-F. What amount, if any, do you award in punitive damages?
11
Bruce Barthelemy:

$ __________________

13

Louis Grondahl:

$ __________________

14

Terry Craig:

$ __________________

12

15
16

Have the foreperson sign and date this form.

17
18

Signed: _________________________________ Dated: _________________

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case No. 5:11-cv-03774-PSG
FINAL VERDICT FORM