Opinion
17-CV-6062 (ARR) (RLM)
05-03-2021
MALIK MCLEOD, Plaintiff, v. YAHAIRA LLANO, Defendant.
DRAFT JURY CHARGE
ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. PART I: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................... 1
A. The Definition of Evidence ......................................................................................... 2
B. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence .......................................................................... 3
C. Witness Credibility ..................................................................................................... 4
D. [If applicable] Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements ................................. 5
E. Law Enforcement Officer Witnesses .......................................................................... 6
F. No Sympathy or Bias ...................................................................................................... 6
G. Burden of Proof - Preponderance of the Evidence .................................................... 6
II. PART I: SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS ................................................................... 8
A. Overview of Mr. McLeod's Claim .............................................................................. 8
B. Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claim ............................................................................... 8
1. First Element: Deprivation of a Federal Right ....................................................... 9
2. Proximate Cause .................................................................................................... 11
C. Damages .................................................................................................................... 12
1. Compensatory Damages ........................................................................................ 12
2. Nominal Damages .................................................................................................. 14
3. Punitive Damages .................................................................................................. 14
4. Taxes and Attorneys' Fees .................................................................................... 15
III. PART III: CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................... 16
A. Foreperson ................................................................................................................. 16
B. Communication with the Court ................................................................................ 16
C. Requests for Trial Testimony ................................................................................... 17
D. Deliberations and Unanimous Verdict ..................................................................... 17
People of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence in the case as well as the arguments of each side, it is my duty to instruct you as to the law applicable in this case. We are all grateful to you for the close attention you have given to this case. I ask that you give me that same careful attention as I give you these final instructions.
As you know, the plaintiff in this case, Malik McLeod, claims that the defendant, Yahaira Llano, used excessive force against him on April 13, 2015. Defendant denies that she used excessive force against plaintiff.
My instructions to you will proceed in three parts:
First, I will instruct you regarding the general rules that define and govern the duties of a jury in a civil case such as this one; Second, I will instruct you as to the legal elements of plaintiff's claims; and Third, I will give you some general rules regarding your deliberations.
I. PART I: GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
Let me start by restating our respective roles as judge and jury.
Your duty, as I mentioned in my opening instructions, is to find the facts from all the evidence in this case. You are the sole judges of the facts and it is for you and you alone to determine what weight to give the evidence, to resolve such conflicts as may have appeared in the evidence, and to draw such inferences as you deem to be reasonable and warranted from the evidence.
My job is to instruct you on the law. You must apply the law, in accordance with my instructions, to the facts as you find them. I remind you of your sworn obligation to follow the law as I describe it to you, whether you agree with it or not. You should not be concerned about the wisdom of any rule of law that I state. Regardless of any opinion you may have about what the law may be-or should be-it would be a violation of your oaths as jurors to base your verdict upon any other view of the law than the one given to you in these instructions.
If any of the lawyers have stated a legal principle that differs from any that I state to you in my instructions, you must be guided solely by what I instruct you about the law. You should not single out any one instruction alone as stating the law but should consider my instructions as a whole.
Since it is your job-not mine-to find the facts, I have neither expressed nor attempted to intimate an opinion about how you should decide the facts of this case. You should not consider anything I have said or done in the course of the trial, including these instructions, as expressing any opinion about the facts or the merits of this case. For example, on occasion, I may have asked questions of a witness. You should attach no special significance to these questions because they were asked by me.
A. The Definition of Evidence
You must determine the facts in this case based solely on the evidence presented or those inferences which can reasonably be drawn from the evidence. Evidence has been presented to you in the form of sworn testimony from the witnesses and exhibits that have been received in evidence by me. When the attorneys on both sides “stipulate, ” that is, agree to the existence of a fact, you the jury may accept the stipulation and consider the fact as proven.
Some evidence has been received for a limited purpose only, and when I have given you a limiting instruction as to such evidence, you must follow that instruction.
There are certain things that are not evidence and are to be entirely disregarded by you in deciding what the facts are: arguments, statements, or summations by the lawyers; objections to the questions or to the offered exhibits; and any testimony that has been excluded, stricken, or that you have been instructed to disregard. Those are not evidence.
Some of the exhibits that have been admitted as evidence contain dark blocks indicating that information that had been on the document has been deleted. We call such a deletion from a document a redaction. All of these redactions have been done at the court's direction. You are not to consider what the redacted portions of the documents might have said or attach any significance at all to the redaction. Most importantly, you are not to draw any inference for or against any party from the fact that I have ordered that a document be redacted.
B. Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
You may use both direct and circumstantial evidence in reaching your verdict in this case. There is no distinction between the weight to be given to these two types of evidence. You must base your verdict on a reasonable assessment of ALL the evidence in the case.
Direct evidence is testimony from a witness about something he or she knows by virtue of his or her own senses-something he or she has seen, felt, touched, or heard.
The other type of evidence-circumstantial evidence-is proof of a chain of circumstances that point to the existence or nonexistence of certain facts. A simple example of circumstantial evidence would be as follows: Suppose you came to court on a day when the weather was clear, sunny, and dry. However, after several hours in the courtroom where there are no windows, you observe a person come in wearing a wet raincoat and another person shaking a wet umbrella. Without you ever looking outside, you would not have direct evidence that it rained, but you might infer from these circumstances that while you were sitting in court, it rained outdoors. That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. On the basis of reason, experience, and common sense, you infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact from one or more established facts.
No significance should be attached to the fact that a document or other exhibit was introduced by one party rather than by the other. Any party is entitled to the benefit of any evidence tending to establish its contentions, even though such evidence may have come from witnesses or documents introduced by another party.
You are permitted to draw, from the facts which you find to be proven, such reasonable inferences as would be justified in light of your experience. Inferences are deductions or conclusions that reason and common sense lead you, the jury, to draw from the facts that have been established by the evidence in the case. Use your common sense in drawing inferences; however, you are not permitted to engage in mere guesswork or speculation.
There are times when differing inferences may be drawn from facts, whether proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. Plaintiff may ask you to draw one inference. Defendant may ask you to draw another. But it is for you, and you alone, to decide what inferences you will draw.
In deciding the factual issues presented in this case, the test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses, or presents the greater quantity of evidence, but rather which witnesses and evidence you find most accurate and trustworthy.
C. Witness Credibility
In deciding the facts in this case, you must consider all of the evidence that has been offered. In doing this, you must decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You are the sole judges of credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony deserves. Your determination of the issue of credibility very largely must depend upon the impression that a witness made upon you as to whether or not that witness was telling the truth or giving you an accurate version of what occurred. You may choose to disbelieve all or part of any witness's testimony. In making that decision, you may take into account any number of factors, including the following:
• the witness's opportunity to see, hear, and know about the events he or she described;
• the witness's ability to recall and describe those things;
• the witness's manner in testifying-was the witness candid and forthright or did the witness seem as if he or she was hiding something, being evasive or suspect in some way;
• how the witness's testimony on direct examination compared with how the witness testified on cross-examination;
• the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all of the other evidence in the case;
• whether the witness had any possible bias, any relationship to a party, any motive to testify falsely, or any possible interest in the outcome of the trial;
• whether a witness's testimony was contradicted by his or her other testimony, by what that witness said or did on a prior occasion, by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other evidence.
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, or between the testimony of different witnesses, may or may not cause you to discredit such testimony. In weighing the effects of a discrepancy, you should consider whether it pertains to a matter of importance or an unimportant detail and whether it results from an innocent error or intentional falsehood.
D. [If applicable] Impeachment by Prior Inconsistent Statements
You may have heard evidence that at some earlier time a witness has said or done something which counsel has argued is inconsistent with the witness's testimony at trial.
Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement was placed before you for the purpose of helping you decide whether to believe the trial testimony of the witness who contradicted himself or herself. If you find that the witness made an earlier statement that conflicts with his or her trial testimony, you may consider that fact in deciding how much of his or her trial testimony, if any, to believe.
In making this determination, you may consider whether the witness purposely made a false statement or whether it was an innocent mistake; whether the inconsistency concerns an important fact or whether it had to do with a small detail; whether the witness had an explanation for the inconsistency; and whether that explanation appealed to your common sense.
It is exclusively your duty, based upon all of the evidence and your own good judgment, to determine whether the prior statement was inconsistent, and if so how much, if any, weight to give to the inconsistent statement in determining whether to believe all or part of the witness's testimony.
E. Law Enforcement Officer Witnesses
In this case you have heard testimony of law enforcement officers. The testimony of these witnesses should be evaluated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness. The fact that a witness is a law enforcement officer does not justify according that witness's testimony more or less credence than the testimony of any other person. You should evaluate the testimony of this witness in the same manner as you would the testimony of any other witness, using all of the tests of credibility that I have discussed with you.
F. No Sympathy or Bias
In determining the issues of fact and rendering a verdict in this case, you should perform your duty with complete impartiality and without bias, sympathy, or prejudice as to any party. All parties are equal before the law and are entitled to the same fair consideration. The court expects that you will carefully and impartially consider all the evidence, follow the law as it is now being given to you, and reach a just verdict, regardless of the consequences.
G. Burden of Proof - Preponderance of the Evidence
In a civil action such as this, plaintiff, Malik McLeod, has the burden of proving each of the essential elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence. If the proof fails to establish any essential element of plaintiff's claim by a preponderance of the evidence, you should find for defendant.
To establish a claim “by a preponderance of the evidence” means to prove that something is more likely so than not so. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and compared with the evidence opposed to it, produces in your minds the belief that what is sought to be proved is, more likely than not, true.
A preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of the evidence. That does not mean the greater number of witnesses or the greater length of the time taken by either side. This determination is based on the quality and persuasiveness of the evidence-the weight and effect it has on your minds.
In determining whether a claim has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider the relevant testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all the relevant exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them.
If you find that the credible evidence on a given issue is in balance or evenly divided between the parties, that it is equally probable that one side is right as it is that the other side is right, or that the evidence produced by plaintiff is outweighed by evidence against his claim, then you must decide that issue against plaintiff. That is because plaintiff is the party who bears the burden of proof in this case, and the party bearing the burden must prove more than simply equality of evidence-he must prove the element at issue by a preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand, plaintiff need not prove his claim by more than a preponderance. So long as you find that the scales tip, however slightly, in favor of plaintiff-that what he claims is more likely true than not true-then the element will have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.
Some of you may have heard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the proper standard in a criminal trial. That requirement does not apply to a civil case such as this one and you should put it out of your mind.
II. PART I: SUBSTANTIVE INSTRUCTIONS
With those general instructions in mind, let us turn to the substantive law to be applied in this case.
A. Overview of Mr. McLeod's Claim
The plaintiff in this case is Malik McLeod. The defendant in this case is a Yahaira Llano, a police officer employed by the New York City Police Department. Mr. McLeod alleges that Officer Llano subjected him to excessive force during the course of an incident that occurred on April 13, 2015 in violation of his federal rights. Specifically, Mr. McLeod alleges that Officer Llano used excessive force upon him. Mr. McLeod is seeking money damages for his claim. Mr. McLeod is not challenging the basis or the validity of his arrest; his claim is solely for excessive force. Defendant denies that she violated Mr. McLeod's right to be free from excessive force and denies plaintiff is entitled to any damages.
I will now discuss the essential elements of Mr. McLeod's claim. Mr. McLeod must prove all elements of his claim by a preponderance of the evidence in order for you to find that Officer Llano is liable. If plaintiff has failed to prove any of these elements, by a preponderance of the evidence, you must find Officer Llano not liable.
B. Plaintiff's Excessive Force Claim
Mr. McLeod is suing for a single claim arising under the Fourth Amendment. That claim is excessive force. In order to find for Mr. McLeod on this claim, you must find that he has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, two elements:
First , that Officer Llano deprived Mr. McLeod of rights secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States; and Second , that Officer Llano's conduct was the proximate cause of Mr. McLeod's injuries and damages.
1. First Element: Deprivation of a Federal Right
The first element that Mr. McLeod must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, is that Officer Llano intentionally or recklessly deprived him of a constitutional right, namely the right to be free from excessive force. To prove that excessive force was used, Mr. McLeod must prove each of the following by a preponderance of the evidence:
First, that Officer Llano used force against him and did so recklessly or intentionally. An act is intentional if it is done voluntarily and deliberately and not because of mistake, accident, negligence, or some other innocent reason. An act is reckless if it is done in conscious disregard of its known probable consequences. It is not necessary to find that Officer Llano specifically intended to deprive Mr. McLeod of his civil rights in order to find in favor of Mr. McLeod.
Second, that the force used against Mr. McLeod was excessive. Every person has the right not to be subjected to unnecessary, unreasonable, or excessive force by a law enforcement officer. On the other hand, a law enforcement officer has the right to use such force as is objectively reasonable under a given set of circumstances. Force is unnecessary or unreasonable if the officer exceeded that degree of force which a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer would have applied under the same circumstances. If you find that there was some forcible contact between plaintiff and defendant, that alone is not sufficient to demonstrate that defendant violated plaintiff's constitutional rights. If the force used caused an injury, that alone also does not necessarily mean that the force used was excessive. You are not to consider the officer's underlying intent or motivation; that is, whether Officer Llano had good intentions or bad intentions has no bearing on whether the use of force was reasonable or excessive.
Now the Constitution must not be trivialized. The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Not every push or shove by a police officer constitutes excessive force, even if it may later seem to have been unnecessary when viewed in the peace and quiet of the courtroom. You must for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving-about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. In determining whether the constitutional line has been crossed, you may consider several factors, including, but not limited to, the severity of the crime which Mr. McLeod was alleged to have committed; whether Mr. McLeod posed a threat to the safety of Officer Llano or others, the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of Mr. McLeod's injury; any effort made by Officer Llano or another police officer to temper or to limit the amount of force used; any threat reasonably (even if mistakenly) perceived by Officer Llano; and whether Mr. McLeod was actively resisting being arrested. However, you do not have to determine whether defendant had less intrusive alternatives available because defendant need only to have acted within the range of conduct identified as reasonable.
If you find that Mr. McLeod has proven both of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must consider whether Mr. McLeod has proven that Officer Llano's wrongful conduct was the proximate cause of his injuries. I'll explain proximate cause in a moment.
If you find that Mr. McLeod has not proven both these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must mark Question 1 on your verdict sheet “No” and your deliberations are over. Your foreperson should sign and date the verdict sheet and tell the Marshal outside your door that you have a verdict. If you find Mr. McLeod has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Officer Llano used excessive force, then you must answer Question 1 on your verdict sheet “Yes” and proceed to determine whether Mr. McLeod has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Officer Llano's wrongful acts were the proximate cause of any injuries he sustained.
2. Proximate Cause
An act is the proximate cause of an injury if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury; that is, if the injury or damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant's actions. If an injury was a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of defendant's wrongful acts, then it was proximately caused by such acts.
In order to recover damages for any injury, Mr. McLeod must show, by a preponderance of evidence that his injury would not have occurred without the acts or omission of defendant. If you find that the injuries about which Mr. McLeod complains would have occurred even without Officer Llano's alleged acts or omissions, then you must find that Officer Llano did not proximately cause Mr. McLeod's injuries.
A proximate cause need not always be the nearest cause either in time or space. There may be more than one proximate cause of an injury or damage. Many factors, or the conduct of two or more people, may operate at the same time, either independently or together, to cause an injury.
In sum, in order to find Officer Llano liable for using excessive force, you must find that Mr. McLeod has proven by a preponderance of the evidence both that she used excessive force and that the excessive force proximately caused Mr. McLeod's injuries. If Mr. McLeod has not proven both elements, then you must answer Question 2 on the verdict sheet “No” and your foreperson should sign and date the verdict sheet and tell the Marshal outside your door that you have a verdict. If you find that Mr. McLeod has proven that Officer Llano used excessive force and that her use of excessive force proximately caused Mr. McLeod's injuries, then you must answer Question 2 on the verdict sheet “Yes” and proceed to consider damages.
C. Damages
I am next going to instruct you on damages, but you should not assume that means that Mr. McLeod is entitled to recover damages. As you will see from the verdict form, you will consider damages only if you have first found that Mr. McLeod has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements of his claim as to Officer Llano. I am instructing you on damages now so that you will have guidance if, but only if, you first decide that Officer Llano is liable to Mr. McLeod. If you find in favor of Mr. McLeod as to liability, I instruct you that Mr. McLeod also has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to damages.
1. Compensatory Damages
If you determine that Officer Llano violated Mr. McLeod's constitutional rights and that violation proximately caused an injury to Mr. McLeod, then Mr. McLeod is entitled to an award of compensatory damages. You must award him the amount of money that you believe will fairly and justly compensate him for any injury you believe he actually sustained as a direct consequence of defendant's conduct. The purpose of compensatory damages is to compensate Mr. McLeod for the actual injuries he suffered, not to punish Officer Llano. Therefore, you must award damages only for those actual injuries that are a proximate result of the conduct by Officer Llano that violated Mr. McLeod's constitutional rights, and you may only award compensatory damages for Mr. McLeod's injuries that result from Officer Llano's unconstitutional acts. You may not award Mr. McLeod damages for any injury that existed prior to the events at issue or for any injury from which he suffered that was not caused by the violations of his rights at issue in this case.
A plaintiff who prevails is entitled to compensatory damages for any physical injury, for pain and suffering, and for emotional distress, fear, personal humiliation and indignation, loss of enjoyment of life, and expenses caused by the misconduct of a defendant. Pain and suffering mean any mental suffering, including emotional suffering, or any resultant physical ailment. In determining the amount Mr. McLeod is entitled to recover, you may include in your damages an award of a monetary sum for: (1) any mental suffering, emotion and psychological injury, and (2) any physical consequences resulting from the emotional distress caused by an unconstitutional act of Officer Llano. There is no requirement that evidence of the monetary value of such intangible things as emotional distress be introduced into evidence.
The law does not provide you with any table, schedule, or formula by which a person's pain and suffering may be measured in terms of money. This amount is left to your sound discretion. Compensatory damages must be fair and reasonable, and neither inadequate nor excessive. You should not award compensatory damages for speculative injuries or based on sympathy or guesswork, but only for those injuries that Mr. McLeod has actually proven he suffered. On the other hand, the law does not require Mr. McLeod to prove the amount of his losses with mathematical precision but with only as much definiteness and accuracy as the circumstances permit.
In all instances, you are to use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing reasonable inferences where you deem appropriate from the facts and circumstances in evidence. If you find that Mr. McLeod has proven an amount of money that would fairly and adequately compensate him for his actual damages from the constitutional violations that you have found, you will answer Question 3 on the verdict sheet “Yes” and enter the amount of damages he has proven in the space provided in Question 4 and proceed to Question 6. If you find that Mr. McLeod has not proven an amount of money that would fairly and adequately compensate him for his actual damages, you will answer Question 3 on the verdict sheet “No” and proceed to Question 5.
2. Nominal Damages
If you find in favor of Mr. McLeod as to liability but find that Mr. McLeod has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered any actual damages from the particular violation (for example, if you find that the injuries Mr. McLeod suffered by reason of defendant's misconduct have no monetary value or were insufficiently serious to justify compensation, or, if you are unable to compute compensatory damages except by engaging in pure speculation and guessing), then you must return an award of damages in some nominal or token amount not to exceed one dollar. You may not award both nominal and compensatory damages to Mr. McLeod for the same violation of his rights; either he experienced actual damages from the particular violation, in which case you must award compensatory damages, or he did not, in which case you must award nominal damages. The amount of such nominal damages shall be entered in the space provided in Question 5 of the verdict sheet.
3. Punitive Damages
In addition to compensatory or nominal damages, if you find in favor of Mr. McLeod as to liability, you may choose to make a separate and additional award of punitive damages. Punitive damages are awarded to punish a defendant for extreme or outrageous conduct, or to deter or prevent a defendant or others like her from committing such conduct in the future. Punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant if a plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant has acted maliciously or wantonly, that is, with reckless or callous disregard of, or indifference to, the rights of others.
An award of punitive damages is discretionary. If you find that Mr. McLeod has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant acted maliciously or wantonly, then you may decide to award punitive damages or you may decide not to award them. In deciding whether to award punitive damages, you should consider whether defendant will be adequately punished by an award of compensatory damages only or whether her conduct was so extreme and outrageous that compensatory damages are inadequate to punish her wrongful conduct. You should also consider whether compensatory damages standing alone are likely to deter or prevent defendant from again committing wrongful acts or whether punitive damages are necessary to provide deterrence. The fact that the constitutional violation does not warrant an award of compensatory damages is not a basis for denying an award of punitive damages. Finally, you should consider whether punitive damages are likely to deter or prevent other persons from committing wrongful acts similar to those you find Officer Llano committed. You should always bear in mind that punitive damages may be awarded only if you have first unanimously awarded Mr. McLeod a verdict for compensatory damages or for nominal damages.
If you find the requirements for awarding punitive damages have been met, and you have decided, in your discretion, punitive damages should be awarded in this case, you will answer Question 6 on the verdict sheet “Yes” and enter the amount of punitive damages awarded in the space provided in Question 7. If you find the requirements for awarding punitive damages have not been met, or you have decided, in your discretion, punitive damages should not be awarded in this case, you will answer Question 6 on the verdict sheet “No.”
4. Taxes and Attorneys' Fees
If you do make an award of damages, such an award is not subject to federal or state income taxes and you should not consider the impact of such taxes in determining the amount of damages. Also, you should not concern yourselves with what Mr. McLeod will have to pay his attorneys for fees or expenses; federal law provides for a separate award of attorneys' fees should Mr. McLeod prevail, in an amount to be determined by the Court.
III. PART III: CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS
I have now outlined for you the rules of law applicable to this case, the process by which you weigh the evidence and determine the facts, and the legal elements which must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. In a few minutes you will retire to the jury room for your deliberations. I will now give you some general rules regarding your deliberations.
Keep in mind that nothing I have said in these instructions is intended to suggest to you in any way what I think your verdict should be. That is entirely for you to decide.
By way of reminder, I charge you once again that it is your responsibility to judge the facts in this case from the evidence presented during the trial and to apply the law as I have given it to you. Remember also that your verdict must be based solely on the evidence in the case and the law as I have given it to you, not on anything else.
A. Foreperson
Traditionally, juror number one acts foreperson. In order that your deliberations may proceed in an orderly fashion, you must have a foreperson, but, of course, the foreperson's vote is not entitled to greater weight than that of any other juror.
B. Communication with the Court
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me for any reason, simply send me a note signed by your foreperson or by one or more other members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me or with any court personnel by any means other than writing. I will not communicate with any member of the jury on any subject touching on the merits of this case other than in writing or orally here in open court.
C. Requests for Trial Testimony
If you wish to have some part of the testimony repeated, or to see any of the exhibits, you may make that request. If you request to see some or all of the exhibits, we will send them into the jury room for you or make them available to you here in open court. If you request to hear certain testimony or to see the trial transcript regarding any matter, I will call you into court and have the court reporter read those portions of the testimony to you or send responsive portions of the trial transcript into the jury room. You can have any of the testimony read back to you or made available to you in transcript form. I suggest, however, that you be specific in your requests so as to avoid hearing testimony or receiving portions of the trial transcript that you do not need to assist you in your deliberations.
D. Deliberations and Unanimous Verdict
Your duty is to reach a fair conclusion from the law and the evidence. It is an important one. When you are in the jury room, listen to each other, and discuss the evidence and issues in the case among yourselves. It is the duty of each of you, as jurors, to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view toward reaching agreement on a verdict, if you can do so without violating your individual judgment and conscience. While you should not surrender conscientious convictions of what the truth is and of the weight and effect of the evidence, and while each of you must decide the case for yourself and not merely acquiesce in the conclusion of your fellow jurors, you should examine the issues and the evidence before you with candor and frankness, and with proper deference to, and regard for, the opinions of your fellow jurors. The decision you reach must be unanimous; you must all agree.
During your deliberations, you must not communicate with, or provide any information to, anyone except yourselves about this case. You may not use any electronic device or media such as a telephone, cell phone, smartphone, iPhone, BlackBerry, or computer to communicate to anyone any information about this case or to conduct any research about this case until I accept your verdict, nor may you use the Internet or any Internet service or any text or instant message service, or website such as Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, or Twitter for those purposes.
You should not consult dictionaries or reference materials or use any other tool, electronic or traditional, to obtain information about the case or to help you decide the case.
In short, do not try to find any information about this case from any source outside what has been presented here at trial until I have accepted your verdict. To do otherwise would violate your oath as a juror.
When you have reached a verdict, simply send me a note signed by your foreperson that you have reached a verdict. Do not indicate what the verdict is. In no communication with the court should you give a numerical count of where the jury stands in deliberations.
To assist you in reaching a verdict, I have prepared a verdict sheet for your use. Although I will provide each of you with a copy of the verdict form, your unanimous verdict must be recorded on the foreperson's verdict form. I will also provide each of you with a copy of these instructions. Please remember that you must follow these instructions as a whole, and you should not rely on any one portion in disregard of the remaining portions.
Remember in your deliberations that the dispute between the parties is, for them, no passing matter. They and the court rely upon you to give full and conscientious deliberation and consideration to the issues and evidence before you. By so doing, you carry out to the fullest your oaths as jurors to well and truly try the issues of this case and render a verdict.
I will ask you to wait for a few moments while I discuss with counsel whether there is anything further about which you need to be charged.