Sublett et al v. Vinson et al

Filing 114

Jury Instructions. (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR .. ___
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUC
PADUCAH DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:06-CV-00038-TBR

WILLIAM EVANS

v.
HARRY VINSON

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1

INTRODUCTION
Members of the jury, now it is time for me to instruct you about the law that you must
follow in deciding this case. I will start by explaining your duties and the general rules that
apply in every civil case. I will then explain the elements, or individual parts, of the claims in
question.
You have two main duties as a juror. First, you must decide what the facts are from the
evidence that you saw and heard here in court. Deciding what the facts are is your job, not mine,
and nothing that I have said or done during this trial was meant to influence your decision about
the facts in any way.
Second, it is your duty to take the law that I give you, apply it to the facts, and decide if
the plaintiff has proven his case against the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. It is
my job to instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath you took at the beginning of
the trial to follow the instructions that I give you, even if you personally disagree with them.
This includes the instructions that I gave you during the trial, and these instructions now. All the
instructions are important, and you should consider them together as a whole.
Mr. Evans and the attorney for Mr. Vinson may have talked about the law during their
arguments. But if what they said is different from what I say, you must follow what I say. What
I say about the law controls.
Perform these duties fairly. Do not let any bias, sympathy, or prejudice that you may feel
toward one side or the other influence your decision in any way. In deciding this case, you
should consider it as a dispute between persons of equal standing in the community and holding
the same or similar stations in life.
Another part of your job as jurors is to decide the credibility of each witness. This is
2

your job, not mine. It is up to you to decide if a witness's testimony was believable, and how
much weight you think it deserves. You are free to believe everything that a witness said, only
part of it, or none of it at all. But you should act reasonably and carefully in making these
decisions. You may consider other things that you think shed light on each witness's
believability. Use your common sense and your everyday experience in dealing with other
people. Then decide what testimony you believe, and how much weight you think it deserves.
Some of you have taken notes during the trial. An individual juror may use notes to
refresh his or her memory of evidence presented at trial, but the notes should not be relied upon
as definitive fact or as evidence. Juror notes have no greater weight than memory, and noteaided and unaided memory are of equal significance. Jurors should not be influenced by another
juror's notes.
Upon retiring to the jury room, you will select one juror to act as your foreperson. The
foreperson will preside over your deliberations and will be your spokesperson here in court. You
will take these instructions to the jury room, and when you have reached a unanimous
agreement, you will have your foreperson fill in, date, and sign your answers.
Once you start deliberating, do not talk to the jury officer, or to me, or to anyone else
except each other about the case. If you have any questions or messages, you must write them
down on a piece of paper, sign them, and give them to the jury officer. The officer will give
them to me, and I will respond as soon as I can. I may have to talk to the parties about what you
have asked, so it may take some time to get back to you. Any questions or messages normally
should be sent to me through your foreperson.
One more thing about messages. Do not ever write down or tell anyone outside the jury
room how you stand on your votes. That should stay secret until you are finished.
3

Your verdict or answer to any question must be unanimous. That is, all eight (8)
members of the jury must agree on any answer to the question and verdict.
It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to
reaching an agreement, if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. You must each
decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence of the case
with your fellow jurors. In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your
own views and change your opinion if you are convinced it is erroneous. But do not surrender
your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence, solely because of the opinion of
your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.

4

INSTRUCTION NO. 1
Introductory Instruction
Under the statute set forth at Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code, any person
who, under color of law, deprives another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution or laws of the United States shall be liable to the injured party.
Plaintiff William Evans claims that Defendant Harry Vinson violated his First and Fourth
Amendment rights while acting under color of state law as an employee of the Kentucky
Department of Corrections.
Evans claims that Vinson violated his Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a search
that was unreasonable.
Evans claims that Vinson violated his First Amendment rights by placing him in
administrative segregation in retaliation for helping a fellow inmate file a grievance against
certain correctional officers at the Kentucky State Penitentiary.
Vinson denies violating Evans's rights. He claims that the drug test administered to
Evans did was reasonable. Additionally, Vinson claims that he did not retaliate against Evans in
violation of his First Amendment rights.

5

INSTRUCTION NO.2
Elements of a Section 1983 Action
In order to prevail on his section 1983 claim against Defendant Harry Vinson, Plaintiff
William Evans must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. That Defendant Harry Vinson acted under color of law; and
2. That the acts by Defendant Harry Vinson deprived Plaintiff William Evans ofhis
particular rights under the Constitution of the United States as explained in
Instruction No. 3 and Instruction No. 4 below.
You are instructed that Vinson acted under color of law in this case. Therefore, you must only
determine whether Evans has proved all the additional elements he is required to prove against
Vinson under Instruction No. 3 and Instruction No. 4.

6

INSTRUCTION NO. 3
Particular Right - Fourth Amendment

Plaintiff William Evans has the burden of proving that Defendant Harry Vinson deprived
Evans of particular rights under the United States Constitution. In this case, Evans alleges that
Vinson deprived him of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
Under the Fourth Amendment, all individuals, including prisoners, have the right to be
free from unreasonable searches of their person. A search of one's person includes the collection
of blood, urine, and other substances that may be obtained from the body. An unreasonable
search of one's person to collect these substances violates the Fourth Amendment. In order to
prove that Vinson deprived Evans of his Fourth Amendment rights, Evans must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that:
1. Defendant Harry Vinson searched Plaintiff William Evans's person;
2. In conducting the search, Defendant Harry Vinson acted intentionally, and
3. The search was unreasonable.
The test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise
definition or mechanical application. Reasonableness in the context of prison administration
requires balancing the significant and legitimate security interest of the institution against the
privacy interest of the inmates. Reasonableness requires a balancing of the need for the
particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails. In determining
whether the search in this case was reasonable, you should consider the scope of the particular
intrusion, the manner in which it was conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in
which it was conducted.

7

INSTRUCTION NO. 4
Particular Right - First Amendment

Plaintiff William Evans has the burden of proving that the Defendant Harry Vinson
deprived him of particular rights under the United States Constitution. In this case, Evans
alleges that Vinson deprived him of his rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution
when Vinson retaliated against Evans for helping a fellow inmate file a grievance against certain
correctional officers at the Kentucky State Penitentiary.
Under the First Amendment, prisoners have the right to petition the government for
redress of grievances. This right includes the right to file grievances in prison. When a prisoner
is deprived of his right to file grievances, he may solicit fellow inmates to help him exercise that
right. It is a violation of section 1983 for a person acting under color of law to retaliate against
any inmate for helping another prisoner exercise his First Amendment right to petition the
government for redress of grievances. In order to prove that Vinson retaliated against Evans
because he helped a follow inmate exercise his First Amendment rights, Evans must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that:
1. Plaintiff William Evans engaged in protected conduct of filing a grievance on behalf of
another inmate;
2. Defendant Harry Vinson took an adverse action against Plaintiff William Evans that
would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and
3. The protected conduct engaged in by Plaintiff William Evans was a substantial or
motivating factor for Defendant Harry Vinson's adverse action against Evans.

8

INSTRUCTION NO. 5
Definition - "Substantial or Motivating Factor"

"Substantial or motivating factor," as used in Instruction No. 4, means a significant
factor.

9

INSTRUCTION NO. 6
Definition - "Preponderance of the Evidence"

The term "preponderance of the evidence" is used in these Instructions and deserves
additional explanation. To establish by the "preponderance of the evidence" means to prove that
something is more likely so than not so. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence in this
case means such evidence that, when considered and compared to that opposed to it, has more
convincing force and produces in your mind a belief that what is sought to be proved is more
likely true than not true.
In determining whether any fact in issue in this case has been proved by a preponderance
of the evidence you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the testimony of all witnesses,
regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who
may have produced them.

10

INSTRUCTION NO. 7
Compensatory Damages

If you find in favor of Plaintiff William Evans, then you may award him such sum as you
find will fairly and justly compensate him for any humiliation, pain, suffering, or mental anguish
he suffered because he was subject to an unreasonable search and/or retaliatory action by
Defendant Harry Vinson. Note, that just because you are receiving an instruction as to damages
does not mean that the Court is expressing any opinion as to whether or not Vinson should be
held liable in this action.
Should you find that Evans is entitled to compensatory damages, any award you give
must be fair compensation - no more and no less. In awarding this measure of damages, no
evidence of the monetary value of such intangible things as pain and suffering has been, or need
be, introduced into evidence. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be
awarded for these elements of damage. Any award you make should be fair in light of the
evidence presented at trial.
In determining the amount of any damages that you decide to award, you should be
guided by common sense. You must use sound judgment in fixing an award of damages,
drawing reasonable inferences from the facts in evidence. You may not award damages based on
sympathy, speculation, or guess work. On the other hand, the law does not require that the
plaintiff prove the amount of his losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much
definiteness and accuracy as circumstances permit.

11

INSTRUCTION NO. 8
Nominal Damages

If you find in favor of Plaintiff William Evans, but he has failed to prove compensatory
damages, then you must award nominal damages of $1.00.
A person whose federal rights were violated is entitled to a recognition of that violation,
even ifhe suffered no actual injury. Nominal damages of$1.00 are designed to acknowledge the
deprivation of a federal right, even where no actual injury occurred.
However, if you find that Evans has proved that he suffered actual injuries, you must
award compensatory damages as described in Instruction No.7, rather than nominal damages.

12

INSTRUCTION NO. 9
Punitive Damages
If you find for Plaintiff William Evans and award him compensatory or nominal
damages, and if you are further satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant
Harry Vinson acted maliciously or wantonly in violating Evans's federally protected rights, you
may in your discretion award punitive damages against Vinson in addition to the other damages.
"Punitive damages" are awarded against a defendant for the purpose of punishing the
defendant for its misconduct, or to deter the defendant and others like the defendant from
committing such conduct in the future.
You may only award punitive damages if you find that Vinson acted maliciously or
wantonly in violating Evans's federally protected rights. A violation is "malicious" if it was
prompted by ill will or spite towards the plaintiff. A defendant is malicious when he consciously
desires to violate federal rights of which he is aware, or when he consciously desires to injure the
plaintiff in a manner he knows to be unlawful. A violation is "wanton" ifthe person committing
the violation recklessly or callously disregards the plaintiff's rights.
To award punitive damages, you must find that, by a preponderance of the evidence,
Vinson acted maliciously or wantonly in violating Evans's federal rights. However, an award of
punitive damages is discretionary; that is, if you find the legal requirements for punitive damages
are satisfied, then you may decide to award punitive damages, or you may decide not to award
punitive damages. Remember, before you can award punitive damages, you must find that the
Vinson acted maliciously or wantonly in violating Evans's federal rights.
Finally, should you choose to award punitive damages, the amount of the award should
only be that amount which punishes Vinson for harming Evans. You may not consider any harm
13

that may have been done to any other person that is not a party to this lawsuit.

14