United States District Court, N.D. California
PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
M. Ryu United States Magistrate Judge
and gentlemen: You are now the jury in this case. It is my
duty to instruct you on the law.
must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may
say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the
evidence or what your verdict should be.
your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the
case. To those facts you will apply the law as I give it to
you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you
agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any
personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or
sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on
the evidence before you. You will recall that you took an
oath to do so.
following my instructions, you must follow all of them and
not single out some and ignore others; they are all
you follow the evidence, I will give you a brief summary of
the positions of the parties:
approximately 9:30 pm on December 31, 2011, Plaintiff Gary
Lawman was arrested by defendant Officers Phillip Gordon and
Glen Minioza for public intoxication. Plaintiff was held in a
sobering cell in County Jail for approximately 4 hours, and
claims that the defendants did not have a legal basis to
arrest him for public intoxication or trespassing, and that
his arrest was the result of an unlawful policy by the San
Francisco Police Department regarding public intoxication
arrests. Plaintiff also claims that he was wrongly arrested
because of his disability.
Defendants claim that there was a legal basis to arrest
Plaintiff for public intoxication and/or trespassing.
Defendants further claim that there was no unlawful policy
regarding public intoxication arrests that caused Plaintiff
to be wrongly arrested. Finally, Defendants claim that
Plaintiff’s arrest was not caused by his disability, if
he had one, but rather by his unlawful behavior.
OF PROOF-PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance
of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the
evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true.
should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless
of which party presented it.
OR MORE PARTIES-DIFFERENT LEGAL RIGHTS
should decide the case as to each defendant party separately.
Unless otherwise stated, the instructions apply to all
evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are
1. the sworn testimony of any witness;
2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and
3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.
reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony
and exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are not
evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the
facts are. I will list them for you:
(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The
lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said in their
opening statements, will say in their closing arguments, and
at other times is intended to help you interpret the
evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you
remember them ...