Martin v. City of San Jose

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedMay 3, 2021
Docket3:19-cv-01227
StatusUnknown

This text of Martin v. City of San Jose (Martin v. City of San Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Martin v. City of San Jose, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDY MARTIN, Case No. 19-cv-01227-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE COURT’S PROPOSED 9 v. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 The Court’s proposed jury instructions are reproduced below. The Court intends to give 15 these instructions subject to modifications based on evidence and developments at trial. Any 16 objections are due by 12:00 Noon on Friday, May 7, 2021. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: May 3, 2021 21 22 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 23 United States District Judge

24 25 26 27 1 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS 2 (GIVEN AT THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL) 3 4 JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ____ [1.3] 5 DUTY OF JURY 6 (COURT READS INSTRUCTIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF TRIAL BUT DOES 7 NOT PROVIDE WRITTEN COPIES) 8 Jurors: You now are the jury in this case, and I want to take a few minutes to tell you 9 something about your duties as jurors and to give you some preliminary instructions. At the end 10 of the trial, I will give you more detailed instructions that will control your deliberations. 11 When you deliberate, it will be your duty to weigh and to evaluate all the evidence 12 received in the case and, in that process, to decide the facts. To the facts as you find them, you 13 will apply the law as I give it to you, whether you agree with the law or not. You must decide the 14 case solely on the evidence and the law before you. 15 Perform these duties fairly and impartially. You should not be influenced by any person’s 16 race, color, religious beliefs, national ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, likes or 17 dislikes, sympathy, prejudice, fear, public opinion, or biases, including unconscious biases. 18 Unconscious biases are stereotypes, attitudes, or preferences that people may consciously reject 19 but may be expressed without conscious awareness, control, or intention. Like conscious bias, 20 unconscious bias can affect how we evaluate information and make decisions. 21 Do not be afraid to examine any assumptions you or other jurors have made which are not 22 based on the evidence presented at trial. Please do not take anything I may say or do during the 23 trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what your verdict should be – that is entirely up 24 to you. 25 26 Court Notes: 9th Cir. Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.3 (modified by the Court).

27 1 JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ____ [1.5] 2 CLAIMS AND DEFENSES 3 To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of the positions of the 4 parties: 5 The plaintiff asserts the following claims: 6 (1) Excessive force in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This claim has been asserted against 7 Officer Ribeiro only. 8 (2) Excessive force in violation of the Bane Act. This claim has been asserted against the 9 City only. 10 (3) Negligence. This claim has been asserted against the City only. 11 The claims against the City are based on the acts or omissions of Officer Ribeiro. That is, 12 the City is responsible for harm caused by the wrongful conduct of Officer Ribeiro while acting 13 within the scope of his employment. 14 The plaintiff has the burden of proving his claims. 15 Defendants deny these claims. 16 17 Court Notes: 9th Cir. Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.5; CACI 3700. The parties 18 stipulated to an instruction, but the Court has modified the stipulated instruction. 19 The Court also notes as follows for the parties’ consideration: As a practical matter, the § 20 1983 and Bane Act claims are nearly duplicative in terms of substantive violations. Although the 21 former is asserted against the officer and the latter against the City, the parties could agree to 22 simplify the instructions by: (1) submitting to the jury the § 1983 claim against the officer, but not 23 the Bane Act claim against the City, and (2) agreeing in advance that whatever happens with the § 24 1983 claim dictates what happens with the Bane Act claim against the City. The parties are 25 directed to meet and confer and determine whether an agreement can be reached on this proposal. 26 The Court notes that Mr. Martin does not make any assertion that a claim for excessive 27 force under the U.S. Constitution differs from a claim for excessive force under the California 1 unreasonable force in the course of arrest or detention, as secured by the Fourth Amendment to 2 the United States Constitution and by Article 1, § 13 of the California Constitution”). 3 To the extent he may argue that a Bane Act claim can be based on reckless disregard, 4 reckless disregard is encompassed by the element of specific intent. See People v. Lashley, 1 Cal. 5 App. 4th 938 (1991), wherein the court stated:

6 "specific intent" . . . does not require an actual awareness on the part of the defendant that he is violating another's constitutional 7 rights. It is enough that he engages in activity that interferes with rights clearly and specifically protected by the laws of the United 8 States.

9 [There are] two requirements for a finding of 'specific intent' . . . . The first is a purely legal determination. Is the . . . right at issue 10 clearly delineated and plainly applicable under the circumstances of the case? If the trial judge concludes that it is, then the jury must 11 make the second, factual, determination. Did the defendant commit the act in question with the particular purpose of depriving the 12 citizen victim of his enjoyment of the interests protected by that . . . right? If both requirements are met, even if the defendant did not in 13 fact recognize the [unlawfulness] of his act, he will be adjudged as a matter of law to have acted 'willfully' – i.e., 'in reckless disregard 14 of constitutional [or statutory] prohibitions or guarantees.'" 15 Id. at 948-49 (emphasis added; relying on, inter alia, Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 104-05 16 (1945)); see also Screws, 325 U.S. at 104-05 (stating that “the specific intent required . . . is an 17 intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of 18 the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them”; when the violator 19 “act[s] willfully in the sense in which we use the word, [he] act[s] in open defiance or in reckless 20 disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite”).

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ____ [1.6] 2 BURDEN OF PROOF – PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE 3 When a party has the burden of proving any claim or affirmative defense by a 4 preponderance of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence that the claim or 5 affirmative defense is more probably true than not true. 6 You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented 7 it. 8 9 Court Notes: 9th Cir. Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.6. 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 JURY INSTRUCTION NO. ____ [1.7] 2 BURDEN OF PROOF – CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE 3 When a party has the burden of proving any claim or defense by clear and convincing 4 evidence, it means that the party must present evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or 5 conviction that it is highly probable that the factual contentions of the claim or defense are true. 6 This is a higher standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of the evidence, but it does not 7 require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 8 9 Court Notes: 9th Cir. Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 1.7. 10 Although the parties stipulated to this instruction, it appears that the parties included this 11 instruction because of punitive damages under state law.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Screws v. United States
325 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Scott v. Harris
550 U.S. 372 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Harper v. City of Los Angeles
533 F.3d 1010 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Acosta v. Hill
504 F.3d 1323 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)
Hung Lam v. City of San Jose
869 F.3d 1077 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Vera Cruz v. City of Escondido
139 F.3d 659 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)
Miller v. Gammie
335 F.3d 889 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martin v. City of San Jose, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-city-of-san-jose-cand-2021.