Opinion
16-cv-06607-SI
11-08-2023
MARIO TORRES, Plaintiff, v. MIKE HANSEN, et al., Defendants.
VERDICT FORM
CLAIM 1 - WARRANTLESS ENTRY OF APARTMENT
1. As to Claim 1, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Mike Hansen and/or Daniel Smith violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when the officers entered the apartment on July 4, 2012, without a warrant?
Officer Hansen Yes No
Officer Smith Yes No
If your answer to both parts of this question was “no,” please skip to Question 4. Otherwise, please answer the next question.
2. As to Claim 1, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant(s) caused him injury, damage or harm?
Officer Hansen 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 4. Nominal damages: $
If either answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.
3. As to Claim 1, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario Torres.
Officer Hansen $
Officer Smith $
Please answer the next question.
CLAIM 2 - EXCESSIVE FORCE PRIOR TO HANDCUFFING
4. As to Claim 2, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Mike Hansen and/or Daniel Smith used excessive force against him inside the apartment prior to plaintiff being handcuffed?
Officer Hansen Yes No
Officer Smith Yes No
If your answer to both questions was “no,” please skip to Question 7. Otherwise, please answer the next question.
5. 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 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 7. Nominal damages: $
If either answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.
6. As to Claim 2, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario Torres.
Officer Hansen $
Officer Smith $
Please answer the next question.
CLAIM 3 - EXCESSIVE FORCE AFTER HANDCUFFING
7. As to Claim 3, has plaintiff Mario Torres proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant Michael Hansen used excessive force against him inside the apartment after plaintiff was handcuffed?
Yes No
If your answer was “no,” please skip to Question 10. Otherwise, please answer the next question.
8. 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 10. Nominal damages: $
If your answer to this question was “yes,” please answer the next question.
9. As to Claim 3, state the amount of compensatory damages proved by plaintiff Mario Torres.
Officer Hansen $
Please go to the next question.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
If you answered “no” to all of the previous questions, do not consider any of the remaining questions and go to the end of the verdict form. Please have the jury foreperson sign and date the form, and return it to the courtroom deputy. If you answered “yes” to any part of Question 1, 4 or 7, please answer the next question.
10. 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
If you answered “no” to this question, skip Question 11 and go to the end of the verdict form. Please have the jury foreperson sign and date the form, and return it to the courtroom deputy. If you answered “yes” to this question, please answer Question 11.
11. State the amount of punitive damages that you award.
Officer Hansen $
Officer Smith $
Please have the foreperson sign and date the form.
Dated:
Foreperson