Opinion
18 Civ. 4023 (LGS)
05-18-2022
RICHARD ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
WHEREAS, the jury trial in this case is scheduled to begin on July 25, 2022, at 9:45 a.m.
WHEREAS, the Court has determined that under the circumstances, including the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic, a juror questionnaire will be used in aid of voir dire. It is hereby
ORDERED that by May 25, 2022, the parties shall jointly file a proposed juror questionnaire, prepared with reference to the previously approved voir dire questions and a sample from a recent civil trial, which are attached hereto. The parties should indicate any disagreement through footnotes or highlighted text.
VOIR DIRE EXCERPT Richard Rosario v. The City of New York, et al.,
18 Civ. 4023
V. OUTLINE OF THE CASE
As I mentioned before, this is a civil case.
You may hear the term “plaintiff” and “defendant.” In this case, the plaintiff is Richard Rosario, a private citizen. The defendants are Charles Cruger, Richard Martinez and Gary Whitaker, who were police officers with the New York City Police Department. The City of New York is also a defendant. The term “plaintiff” just means the party who brought the lawsuit, and “defendant” means the person who was sued. You must not attach any significance to the terms “plaintiff” and “defendant” in weighing the evidence. I'm going to refer to each party to this lawsuit by just their last name. I don't mean them any disrespect by doing that. It will just take less time and paper.
Richard Rosario was arrested on July 1, 1996, for the Bronx murder of Jorge Collazo. In 1998, a jury convicted Rosario of the murder and he was sentenced to prison. In 2016, after nearly twenty years in custody, Rosario's conviction was vacated, and he was freed from prison. In this lawsuit, Rosario claims that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights and caused him to be wrongly prosecuted for murder. Each of the Defendants deny any wrongdoing and assert that they acted properly in arresting and prosecuting Rosario. This is just a summary of the parties' claims and defenses.
Under the law, the facts are for the jury to determine and the law is for the Court. The two areas are separate and distinct. At the beginning of the case and again at the end of the case, I will instruct you on the law, and you are required to accept the law as I explain it to you. It will be your job to determine the facts under my explanation of the law.
VI. INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE
Those of you who were not chosen as part of the sixteen, please make a note if you would answer yes to any of these questions so that if you are called up later, you can tell me about it. First, let me ask some very general questions.
1. Is there anyone who before today has heard or read about this lawsuit or the events leading up to it? Is there anyone who believes that he or she cannot be fair and impartial in a case involving these allegations?
2. Is there anyone who believes that he or she cannot be fair and impartial in a case involving Richard Rosario, Gary Whitaker, Irwin Silverman, Charles Cruger, Joseph Fortunato, Richard Martinez, Edward Monks and the City of New York?
3. Is there anyone who believes that he or she will not be able to apply the law as I explain it, including about how much - if any - money any party may recover, even if they disagree with it?
4. Do any of you have any physical or personal problems that would prevent you from serving in this case, which is expected to last a little less than two weeks?
5. Do any of you have any difficulty with your sight or hearing that could affect your perception of the proceedings?
6. Are you taking any medication that would prevent you from giving your full attention to all the evidence?
7. Does any juror have any difficulty in reading or understanding English?
8. Does anyone NOT live in Manhattan, the Bronx, or one of the following counties: Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess or Sullivan? [All in SDNY]. Does anyone live in Queens? Brooklyn? Staten Island? [Not SDNY].
VII. CASE SPECIFIC AND OTHER FOR CAUSE QUESTIONS
Now I will ask some questions that are more about this case.
1. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been employed by a local, state, or federal government agency?
2. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been employed by a New York City agency or any other city agency such as the department of corrections, police department, fire department, or sanitation department? Is there anything about your employment with that agency that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
3. Do you or does anyone close to you work in law enforcement?
4. Have you or has anyone close to you ever attended any protests or demonstrations related to police activity, whether for or against? Is there anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
5. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been the victim of or eyewitness to a violent crime? [Speak to juror privately]
6. Have you or has anyone close to you ever had an interaction with a law enforcement officer that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case? [Speak to juror privately]
7. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been detained in a jail, prison, or other correctional facility? [Speak to juror privately]
8. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been charged for a crime you or they did not commit? [Speak to juror privately]
9. Do you believe that a police officer is more likely to tell the truth simply because he or she is a police officer?
10. Would you tend to give more or less weight to the testimony of a witness who is a law enforcement officer or prosecutor than other witnesses?
11. Have you or has anyone close to you ever been a party to a lawsuit?
12. Have you ever served on a grand jury? Where? When?
13. Have you ever served on a trial jury? If so, was it civil or criminal? Did the jury reach a verdict? (Do not tell us what the verdict was.)
14. Do you or does anyone close to you have legal training? If so, would this prevent you from applying the law as I instruct you? Will each of you (the entire venire) accept my instruction that you are not to discuss the case with anyone, including attorneys you may know, until you are excused as jurors?
VIII. INTRODUCTION TO THE PARTIES AND COUNSEL
1. I'm going to ask each person to stand and briefly remove your mask as you are introduced. The Plaintiff is Richard Rosario. Do you know, or have you had any dealings with him?
2. Mr. Rosario is represented by attorneys Nick Brustin, Emma Freudenberger, Anna Hoffman, and Katherine Haas from the firm Neufeld Scheck & Brustin, LLP. Do any of you know any of them or have you had any dealings with them or their firms?
3. The Defendants are Gary Whitaker, Richard Martinez, Charles Cruger and the City of New York. Do you know, or have you had any dealings with them?
4. The Defendants are represented by Brachah Goykadosh from the New York City Law Department. Do you know [him/her] or have you had any dealings with [him/her] or the New York City Law Department?
5. Have any of you or anyone close to you ever been employed by or applied for employment with these law firms or the New York City Law Department?
6. Have you or has anyone close to you ever had a dispute with these parties or their lawyers?
7. Do you know any of the other potential jurors?
Do you know me or any of my staff?
IX. WITNESS INTRODUCTION
I will now read you the names of potential witnesses and other people who may be mentioned during the trial. My including a name, however, imposes no obligation on any party to call that person as a witness. Some of these individuals might not testify. My question is whether you personally know or have had any dealings with the following people (or places):
1. Bhushan Agharkar, M.D., D.F.A.P.A.
2. Charles Cruger
3. Robert Davis
4. Jennifer Dysart, Ph.D.
5. Steven Fayer, M.D.
6. Detective Joseph Fortunato
7. Alexis Gonzalez
8. Assistant District Attorney David Greenfield
9. Joyce Hartsfield
10. Patrick Hoffman
11. Steven Kaiser
12. Lymari Leon
13. Carl Loewenson, Jr.
14. Carlos Maldonado, Jr.
15. Richard Martinez
16. Vivene Martinez
17. Detective Edward Monks
18. DeAnsin Parker, Ph.D
19. Jeanne Petrauskas
20. Assistant District Attorney Jeanne Petrauskas
21. Richard Rosario
22. Minerva Rosario
23. Chenoa Ruiz
24. Michael Sanchez
25. Michael Serrano
26. Irwin Silverman
27. Dan Slepian
28. Fernando Torres
29. Jenine Torres
30. John Torres
31. Nicole Torres
32. Detective John Wall
33. Gary Whitaker
PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS
The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide information to the Court and the attorneys in this case, so that they can determine whether you can be a fair and impartial juror. Please read the following instructions carefully before completing any portion of this questionnaire. Please print your juror number in the space provided at the top of each page.
YOU ARE SWORN TO GIVE TRUE AND COMPLETE ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. The questions are not intended to inquire unnecessarily into personal matters. Although some of the questions may appear to be of a personal nature, please understand that the Court and the parties must learn enough information about each juror's background and experiences to select a fair and impartial jury.
Please answer every question. If you do not understand a particular question or do not know the answer, please write either “I do not understand” or “I do not know.” If you feel a question does not apply to you write “N/A.” Please answer each question fully. Some questions have more than one part. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers, only truthful answers. Remember, you are sworn to give true and complete answers to all questions.
If you need extra space for any answer, please use the blank sheets of paper included at the end of the questionnaire. Be sure to indicate on the blank page the number of the question you are answering. Do not write anything on the back of any page.
If you believe that any of your answers contain private information that could embarrass you or otherwise seriously compromise your privacy and wish to request that the Court keep them confidential and not distribute them beyond the judge and the attorneys in the case, you may indicate that on one of the blank pages at the end of this form. (Please identify the specific answer or answers that you believe should remain confidential.) After a jury has been selected, all copies of your responses to the questionnaire will be destroyed, except one copy which the judge will keep.
DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OR THE CASE WITH ANYONE, NOW OR UNTIL FURTHER INSTRUCTED BY THE COURT. You should not discuss the questions or answers with fellow jurors. It is very important that your answers be your own individual answers. More broadly, do not discuss the case with anyone, including the lawyers, your fellow jurors, your family, your friends, or anyone else. Do not communicate about the case in any way, including by text, telephone, e-mail, or social media (like Facebook or Twitter). You must also avoid reading or hearing about the case (or anyone participating in the case) in newspapers, in magazines, on the radio or television, or on the Internet.
DO NOT READ, WATCH, OR LISTEN TO ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE OR CONDUCT YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON THE CASE. Do not conduct any research into the case (or anyone participating in the case) at any time before your entire jury service has been completed. That includes performing Internet searches, asking other people about the case, reading news stories, books, or reports about the case, or watching films or television programs that relate to the case.
SUMMARY OF THE CASE
The Court is selecting a jury for an approximately four-week trial beginning April 22, 2022. The trial should end by around Friday, May 20, but may last a few days less or more. We generally will not sit on Fridays.
This is a civil antitrust case brought by Plaintiff U.S. Airways, Inc. against three defendants (collectively “Sabre”). U.S. Airways is an airline. Sabre operates a computerized service for certain travel agents to, among other things, book airline tickets.
US Airways contends that Sabre harmed competition and engaged in unlawful monopolization in violation of the federal antitrust laws through certain exclusionary actions. Sabre disputes this contention and denies that it harmed competition, engaged in unlawful monopolization, or committed exclusionary actions.]