UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL CHARGE

MEMBERS OF THE JURY:

NOW THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE TO BE RECEIVED IN THIS TRIAL AND EACH OF THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, IT BECOMES MY DUTY TO GIVE YOU THE COURT'S FINAL INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE LAW THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE AND WHICH WILL GUIDE YOU IN YOUR DECISIONS.

ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT -- THOSE GIVEN TO YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL, THOSE GIVEN TO YOU DURING THE TRIAL, IF ANY, AND THESE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS -- MUST GUIDE AND GOVERN YOUR DELIBERATIONS.

IT IS YOUR DUTY AS JURORS TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS STATED IN ALL OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT AND TO APPLY THESE RULES OF LAW TO THE FACTS AS YOU FIND THEM FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED DURING THE TRIAL.

COUNSEL HAVE QUITE PROPERLY REFERRED TO SOME OF THE APPLICABLE RULES OF LAW IN THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO YOU. IF, HOWEVER, ANY DIFFERENCE APPEARS TO YOU BETWEEN THE LAW AS STATED BY COUNSEL AND THAT AS STATED BY THE COURT IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU, OF COURSE, ARE TO BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT.

YOU ARE NOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE WISDOM OF ANY RULE OF LAW STATED BY THE COURT. REGARDLESS OF ANY OPINION YOU MAY HAVE AS TO WHAT THE LAW OUGHT TO BE, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF YOUR SWORN DUTY TO BASE ANY PART OF YOUR VERDICT UPON ANY OTHER VIEW OR OPINION OF THE LAW THAN THAT GIVEN IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE COURT JUST AS IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF YOUR SWORN DUTY, AS THE JUDGES OF THE FACTS, TO BASE YOUR VERDICT UPON ANYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE CASE.

YOU WERE CHOSEN AS JURORS FOR THIS TRIAL IN ORDER TO EVALUATE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED AND TO DECIDE EACH OF THE FACTUAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF, AND THE DENIAL OF THESE ALLEGATIONS BY THE DEFENDANT.

NOTHING I SAY IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS IS TO BE TAKEN AS AN INDICATION THAT I HAVE ANY OPINION ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, OR WHAT THAT OPINION IS. IT IS NOT MY FUNCTION TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, BUT RATHER YOURS.

YOU MUST PERFORM YOUR DUTIES AS JURORS WITHOUT BIAS OR PREJUDICE AS TO ANY PARTY. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT YOU TO BE GOVERNED BY SYMPATHY, PREJUDICE OR PUBLIC OPINION. ALL PARTIES EXPECT THAT YOU WILL CAREFULLY AND IMPARTIALLY CONSIDER ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT IS NOW BEING GIVEN TO YOU, AND REACH A JUST VERDICT, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

THIS CASE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY YOU AS AN ACTION BETWEEN PERSONS OF EQUAL STANDING IN THE COMMUNITY, OF EQUAL WORTH, AND HOLDING THE SAME OR SIMILAR STATIONS IN LIFE. ALL PERSONS STAND EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, AND ARE TO BE DEALT WITH AS EQUALS IN A COURT OF JUSTICE.

AS STATED EARLIER, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO DETERMINE THE FACTS, AND IN SO DOING, YOU MUST CONSIDER ONLY THE EVIDENCE I HAVE ADMITTED IN THE CASE. THE TERM "EVIDENCE" INCLUDES THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES, SWORN TESTIMONY READ TO YOU FROM DEPOSITIONS, THE EXHIBITS ADMITTED IN THE RECORD, AND STIPULATED OR ADMITTED FACTS. A STIPULATION IS A STATEMENT OF FACT AGREED TO BETWEEN THE PARTIES, AND YOU MUST REGARD STIPULATED FACTS AS TRUE.

REMEMBER THAT ANY STATEMENTS, OBJECTIONS OR ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LAWYERS ARE NOT EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. THE FUNCTION OF THE LAWYERS IS TO POINT OUT THOSE THINGS THAT ARE MOST SIGNIFICANT OR MOST HELPFUL TO THEIR SIDE OF THE CASE, AND IN SO DOING, TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO CERTAIN FACTS OR INFERENCES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE ESCAPE YOUR NOTICE.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, HOWEVER, IT IS YOUR OWN RECOLLECTION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTROLS. WHAT THE LAWYERS SAY IS NOT BINDING UPON YOU.

SO, WHILE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ONLY THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, YOU ARE PERMITTED TO DRAW SUCH REASONABLE INFERENCES FROM THE TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS AS YOU FEEL ARE JUSTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF YOUR OWN EXPERIENCE. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU MAY MAKE DEDUCTIONS AND REACH CONCLUSIONS WHICH REASON AND COMMON SENSE LEAD YOU TO DRAW FROM THE FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

UNLESS YOU ARE OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED, THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE ALWAYS CONSISTS OF THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES, REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY HAVE CALLED THEM; ALL EXHIBITS RECEIVED AS EVIDENCE, REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY HAVE PRODUCED THEM; AND ALL FACTS WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY NOTICED.

ANY EVIDENCE AS TO WHICH AN OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED BY THE COURT, AND ANY EVIDENCE ORDERED STRICKEN BY THE COURT, MUST BE ENTIRELY DISREGARDED.

UNLESS YOU ARE OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED, ANYTHING YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARD OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM IS NOT EVIDENCE AND MUST BE ENTIRELY DISREGARDED.

YOU, AS JURORS, ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESSES AND THE WEIGHT THEIR TESTIMONY DESERVES. YOU MAY BE GUIDED BY THE APPEARANCE AND CONDUCT OF THE WITNESS, OR BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE WITNESS TESTIFIES, OR BY THE CHARACTER OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN, OR BY THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN.

YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE ALL THE TESTIMONY, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH EACH WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED, AND EVERY MATTER IN EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO SHOW WHETHER A WITNESS IS WORTHY OF BELIEF. CONSIDER EACH WITNESS' INTELLIGENCE, MOTIVE AND STATE OF MIND, AND DEMEANOR OR MANNER WHILE ON THE STAND. CONSIDER THE WITNESS' ABILITY TO OBSERVE THE MATTERS AS TO WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED, AND WHETHER THE WITNESS IMPRESSES YOU AS HAVING AN ACCURATE RECOLLECTION OF THESE MATTERS. CONSIDER ALSO ANY RELATION EACH WITNESS MAY BEAR TO EITHER SIDE OF THE CASE; THE MANNER IN WHICH EACH WITNESS MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY THE VERDICT; AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH, IF AT ALL, EACH WITNESS IS EITHER SUPPORTED OR CONTRADICTED BY OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

INCONSISTENCIES OR DISCREPANCIES IN THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS, OR BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY OF DIFFERENT WITNESSES, MAY OR MAY NOT CAUSE THE JURY TO DISCREDIT SUCH TESTIMONY. TWO OR MORE PERSONS WITNESSING AN INCIDENT OR A TRANSACTION MAY SEE OR HEAR IT DIFFERENTLY; AN INNOCENT MISRECOLLECTION, LIKE FAILURE OF RECOLLECTION, IS NOT AN UNCOMMON EXPERIENCE. IN WEIGHING THE EFFECT OF A DISCREPANCY, ALWAYS CONSIDER WHETHER IT PERTAINS TO A MATTER OF IMPORTANCE OR AN UNIMPORTANT DETAIL, AND WHETHER THE DISCREPANCY RESULTS FROM INNOCENT ERROR OR INTENTIONAL FALSEHOOD.

AFTER MAKING YOUR OWN JUDGMENT, YOU WILL GIVE THE TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS SUCH WEIGHT, IF ANY, AS YOU MAY THINK IT DESERVES.

YOU MAY, IN SHORT, ACCEPT OR REJECT THE TESTIMONY OF ANY WITNESS IN WHOLE OR IN PART.

ALSO, THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IS NOT NECESSARILY DETERMINED BY THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING TO THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF ANY FACT. YOU MAY FIND THAT THE TESTIMONY OF A SMALL NUMBER OF WITNESSES AS TO ANY FACT IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE TESTIMONY OF A LARGER NUMBER OF WITNESSES TO THE CONTRARY.

THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY PARTY TO CALL AS WITNESSES ALL PERSONS WHO MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT ANY TIME OR PLACE INVOLVED IN THE CASE, OR WHO MAY APPEAR TO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATTERS IN ISSUE AT THIS TRIAL. NOR DOES THE LAW REQUIRE ANY PARTY TO PRODUCE AS EXHIBITS ALL PAPERS AND THINGS MENTIONED IN EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

IT IS PROPER FOR AN ATTORNEY TO INTERVIEW ANY WITNESS IN PREPARATION FOR TRIAL.

THERE ARE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, TWO TYPES OF EVIDENCE FROM WHICH A JURY MAY PROPERLY FIND THE TRUTH AS TO THE FACTS OF A CASE. ONE IS DIRECT EVIDENCE -- SUCH AS THE TESTIMONY OF AN EYEWITNESS. THE OTHER IS INDIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE -- THE PROOF OF A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES POINTING TO THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF CERTAIN FACTS.

AS A GENERAL RULE, THE LAW MAKES NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, BUT SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT THE JURY FIND THE FACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PREPONDERANCE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, BOTH DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

THE BURDEN IS ON THE PLAINTIFF IN A CIVIL ACTION SUCH AS THIS TO PROVE EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF HIS CLAIM BY A "PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE."

A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MEANS SUCH EVIDENCE AS, WHEN CONSIDERED AND COMPARED WITH THAT OPPOSED TO IT, HAS MORE CONVINCING FORCE AND PRODUCES IN YOUR MINDS A BELIEF THAT WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE PROVED IS MORE LIKELY TRUE THAN NOT TRUE. IN OTHER WORDS, TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE MEANS TO PROVE THAT THE CLAIM IS MORE LIKELY SO THAN NOT SO. THIS RULE DOES NOT, OF COURSE, REQUIRE PROOF TO AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, SINCE PROOF TO AN ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY IS SELDOM POSSIBLE IN ANY CASE.

IN DETERMINING WHETHER ANY FACT IN ISSUE HAS BEEN PROVED BY A "PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE,"THE JURY MAY CONSIDER THE TESTIMONY OF ALL THE WITNESSES, REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY HAVE CALLED THEM, AND ALL THE EXHIBITS RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE, REGARDLESS OF WHO MAY HAVE PRODUCED THEM.

IF THE PROOF SHOULD FAIL TO ESTABLISH ANY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, THEN THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO CARRY HIS BURDEN OF PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE AND YOU MUST RETURN A VERDICT FOR THE DEFENDANT.

WHEN I SAY IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS THAT A PARTY HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY PROPOSITION, OR USE THE EXPRESSION "IF YOU FIND," OR "IF YOU DECIDE," I MEAN YOU MUST BE PERSUADED, CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, THAT THE PROPOSITION IS MORE PROBABLY TRUE THAN NOT TRUE.

THE NATURE OF THE CLAIM

THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ACTION, JOSE NAZARIO, CLAIMS THAT THE DEFENDANT, OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ, WHILE ACTING "UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW," INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVED THE PLAINTIFF OF RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANT VIOLATED THESE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN DEFENDANT OFFICER MARTINEZ ARRESTED PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT NAZARIO HAD COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. AS A RESULT OF OFFICER MARTINEZ'S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT HE SUFFERED INJURY FOR WHICH HE SEEKS DAMAGES.

OFFICER MARTINEZ DENIES THAT ANY OF HIS ACTIONS DURING THE TIME IN QUESTION VIOLATED JOSE NAZARIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, A PERSON IS PROTECTED AGAINST BEING ARRESTED WHEN THERE IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE. ON THE OTHER HAND, A POLICE OFFICER MAY ARREST A PERSON IF HE HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THAT PERSON HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE.

SECTION 1983 OF TITLE 42 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE PROVIDES THAT ANY CITIZEN MAY SEEK REDRESS IN THIS COURT BY WAY OF DAMAGES AGAINST ANY PERSON WHO, UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW OR CUSTOM, INTENTIONALLY DEPRIVES THAT CITIZEN OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED OR PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES.

THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CASE

PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO CLAIMS THAT DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ ARRESTED HIM WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE HAD COMMITTED A CRIME IN VIOLATION OF HIS FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE UNREASONABLY SEIZED.

DEFENDANT DENIES THAT HE LACKED PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLAINTIFF.

IN ORDER TO PREVAIL ON HIS CLAIM AGAINST OFFICER MARTINEZ UNDER THE FEDERAL STATUTE, 42 U.S.C. ' 1983, JOSE NAZARIO MUST ESTABLISH BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS AS TO THE DEFENDANT:

(1.) THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ INTENTIONALLY ARRESTED JOSE NAZARIO WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT JOSE NAZARIO HAD COMMITTED OR WAS COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENSE;

(2.) THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ ACTED UNDER COLOR OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; IN THIS CASE YOU ARE INSTRUCTED THAT THE PARTIES HAVE STIPULATED THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ WAS ACTING UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW AT THE TIME OF THE ACTS COMPLAINED OF, AND YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT FACT AS PROVEN;

(3.) THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ'S ACTS WERE THE LEGAL CAUSE OF JOSE NAZARIO'S DAMAGES.

DEFINITION OF PROBABLE CAUSE

PROBABLE CAUSE IS TO BE DETERMINED IN A PRACTICAL, NONTECHNICAL MANNER. PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST EXISTS, IF AT THE MOMENT THE ARREST IS MADE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITHIN THE OFFICER'S KNOWLEDGE, AND OF WHICH HE HAD REASONABLY TRUSTWORTHY INFORMATION, ARE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A PRUDENT PERSON IN BELIEVING THAT AN OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED.

MERE PRESENCE AT A LOCATION WHERE OTHER CRIMINAL ACTS MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROBABLE CAUSE. PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRES MORE THAN A BARE SUSPICION, BUT NEED NOT BE BASED ON EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION, NOR EVEN SHOWING THAT THE OFFICER'S BELIEF IS MORE LIKELY TRUE THAN FALSE. BECAUSE OF THE AMBIGUITY OF SITUATIONS WITH WHICH THE POLICE ARE OFTEN CONFRONTED, THE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE PERMITS MISTAKES WHICH ARE REASONABLY MADE.

UNDER ILLINOIS LAW, A PERSON COMMITS THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF ATTEMPT 'WHEN, WITH INTENT TO COMMIT A SPECIFIC OFFENSE, HE DOES ANY ACT WHICH CONSTITUTES A SUBSTANTIAL STEP TOWARD THE COMMISSION OF THAT OFFENSE." IT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A CHARGE OF ATTEMPT THAT BECAUSE OF A MISAPPREHENSION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ACCUSED TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE ATTEMPTED.

A DISPOSITION OF A CASE AS "SOL" MEANS STRICKEN FROM THE COURT'S DOCKET WITH LEAVE TO REINSTATE. IT IS NOT A DETERMINATION THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FOUND INNOCENT. BECAUSE OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME, THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST JOSE NAZARIO CAN NO LONGER BE REINSTATED.

DAMAGES

IF YOU FIND THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ IS NOT LIABLE TO JOSE NAZARIO, THEN YOU NEED NOT CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES.

IF YOU FIND THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ IS LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO, THEN YOU MUST CONSIDER WHETHER TO AWARD THE PLAINTIFF DAMAGES. THE LAW PLACES A BURDEN UPON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE SUCH FACTS AS WILL ENABLE YOU TO ARRIVE AT THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY AND WITHOUT SPECULATION. WHILE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE PLAINTIFF PROVE THE AMOUNT OF THOSE DAMAGES WITH MATHEMATICAL PRECISION, THE PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO PRESENT SUCH EVIDENCE AS MIGHT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YOU SHOULD NOT INTERPRET THE FACT THAT I HAVE GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT THE PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES AS AN INDICATION IN ANY WAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD, OR SHOULD NOT, WIN THIS CASE.

IF YOU FIND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF, JOSE NAZARIO, THEN YOU MUST AWARD HIM SUCH A SUM AS YOU FIND BY THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE WILL FAIRLY AND JUSTLY COMPENSATE HIM FOR ANY DAMAGES YOU FIND HE SUSTAINED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF OFFICER MARTINEZ'S CONDUCT. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES INCLUDE TWO DISTINCT TYPES OF DAMAGES AND YOU MUST CONSIDER THEM SEPARATELY:

FIRST, YOU MUST DETERMINE AN AMOUNT THAT IS FAIR COMPENSATION FOR THE PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES. THESE DAMAGES ARE CALLED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. THE PURPOSE OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IS TO MAKE THE PLAINTIFF WHOLE -- THAT IS, TO COMPENSATE THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE DAMAGES THAT THE PLAINTIFF HAS SUFFERED.

YOU MUST DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF ANY DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY PLAINTIFF, SUCH AS OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES, EMOTIONAL PAIN, SUFFERING, INCONVENIENCE, AND MENTAL ANGUISH. WHEN CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF MONETARY DAMAGES TO WHICH PLAINTIFF MAY BE ENTITLED, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE NATURE, CHARACTER, AND SERIOUSNESS OF ANY EMOTIONAL DISTRESS HE FELT. YOU MUST ALSO CONSIDER ITS EXTENT OR DURATION, AS ANY AWARD YOU MAKE MUST COVER THE DAMAGES ENDURED BY PLAINTIFF SINCE THE WRONGDOING TO THE PRESENT TIME. YOU ARE NOT TO AWARD DAMAGES FOR ANY INJURY OR CONDITION FROM WHICH THE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SUFFERED UNLESS IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE THAT SUCH INJURY OR CONDITION WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE INCIDENT IN QUESTION.

YOU MAY NOT INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES MERELY BECAUSE YOU FIND THAT PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. YOU MAY ONLY AWARD COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR ANY ACTUAL INJURY YOU FIND PLAINTIFF TO HAVE SUFFERED AND PROVED.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

IN ADDITION TO THE DAMAGES MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS INSTRUCTION, THE LAW PERMITS THE JURY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES TO AWARD AN INJURED PERSON PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ORDER TO PUNISH THE DEFENDANT FOR SOME EXTRAORDINARY MISCONDUCT AND TO SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE OR WARNING TO OTHERS NOT TO ENGAGE IN SUCH CONDUCT.

IF YOU FIND IN FAVOR OF JOSE NAZARIO ON HIS CLAIM, AND IF YOU FIND THAT OFFICER MARTINEZ ACTED WITH MALICE OR WITH RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO JOSE NAZARIO'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEN IN ADDITION TO ANY DAMAGES TO WHICH YOU FIND JOSE NAZARIO ENTITLED, YOU MAY AWARD HIM AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AS PUNITIVE DAMAGES, IF YOU FIND IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PUNISH OFFICER MARTINEZ OR DETER OFFICER MARTINEZ AND OTHERS FROM LIKE CONDUCT IN THE FUTURE.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES MUST BEAR A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PLAINTIFF'S ACTUAL INJURY. HOWEVER, NO SINGLE NUMERICAL EQUATION HAS BEEN MADE TO EASILY LINK PUNITIVE TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. IN DETERMINING A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP TO THAT ACTUAL INJURY, YOU MUST CONSIDER ALL RELEVANT FACTORS. THESE INCLUDE:

(1) THE IMPACT OR SEVERITY OF THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT,
(2) THE AMOUNT OF TIME THE DEFENDANT CONDUCTED HIMSELF IN THIS MANNER,
(3) THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES,
(4) THE EFFECT OF THE DAMAGES AWARD ON THE DEFENDANT'S FINANCIAL CONDITION, AND
(5) ANY PUNISHMENT THE DEFENDANT MAY RECEIVE FROM OTHER SOURCES.

VERDICT - UNANIMOUS - DUTY TO DELIBERATE

THE VERDICT MUST REPRESENT THE CONSIDERED JUDGMENT OF EACH JUROR. IN ORDER TO RETURN A VERDICT, IT IS NECESSARY THAT EACH JUROR AGREE. YOUR VERDICT MUST BE UNANIMOUS.

IT IS YOUR DUTY, AS JURORS, TO CONSULT WITH ONE ANOTHER, AND TO DELIBERATE WITH A VIEW TO REACHING AN AGREEMENT, IF YOU CAN DO SO WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO INDIVIDUAL JUDGMENT. YOU MUST EACH DECIDE THE CASE FOR YOURSELF, BUT ONLY AFTER AN IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE WITH YOUR FELLOW JURORS. IN THE COURSE OF YOUR DELIBERATIONS, DO NOT HESITATE TO RE-EXAMINE YOUR OWN VIEWS, AND CHANGE YOUR OPINION, IF CONVINCED IT IS ERRONEOUS. BUT DO NOT SURRENDER YOUR HONEST CONVICTION AS TO THE WEIGHT OR EFFECT OF EVIDENCE, SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE OPINION OF YOUR FELLOW JURORS, OR FOR THE MERE PURPOSE OF RETURNING A VERDICT.

REMEMBER AT ALL TIMES THAT YOU ARE NOT PARTISANS. YOU ARE JUDGES -- JUDGES OF THE FACTS. YOUR SOLE INTEREST IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH FROM THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE.

EFFECT OF INSTRUCTION AS TO DAMAGES

THE FACT THAT I HAVE INSTRUCTED YOU AS TO THE PROPER MEASURE OF DAMAGES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INTIMATING ANY VIEW OF MINE AS TO WHICH PARTY IS ENTITLED TO YOUR VERDICT IN THIS CASE. INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE MEASURE OF DAMAGES ARE GIVEN FOR YOUR GUIDANCE, IN THE EVENT YOU SHOULD FIND IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF FROM A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OTHER INSTRUCTIONS.

FORMS OF VERDICT EXPLAINED

UPON RETIRING TO THE JURY ROOM, YOU WILL SELECT ONE OF YOUR NUMBER TO ACT AS FOREPERSON. THE FOREPERSON WILL PRESIDE OVER YOUR DELIBERATIONS, AND WILL BE YOUR SPOKESPERSON HERE IN COURT.

VERDICT FORMS HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.

IF YOU FIND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ, YOU SHOULD CALCULATE DAMAGES USING JURY VERDICT FORM NUMBER 1, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"WE THE JURY FIND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ FOR VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. HAVING FOUND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MARTINEZ, WE ASSESS:

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT: $_____________."

IF YOU FIND THAT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF, AND YOU FURTHER FIND THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE APPROPRIATE, YOU MAY AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ADDITION TO COMPENSATORY DAMAGES, USING JURY VERDICT FORM NUMBER 2 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"WE THE JURY FIND AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR THE PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT $______________."

IF YOU FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF, BUT THAT PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE, YOU SHOULD PLACE A ZERO IN JURY VERDICT FORM NUMBER 2.

IF YOU FIND IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO, YOU SHOULD USE THE JURY VERDICT FORM NUMBER 3 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

"WE THE JURY FIND THAT THE PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ ACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF, AND THEREFORE, WE FIND FOR THE DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO."

YOU WILL TAKE THE VERDICT FORMS TO THE JURY ROOM AND, WHEN YOU HAVE REACHED UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT AS TO YOUR VERDICT, YOU WILL ALL SIGN AND DATE THE FORM WHICH SETS FORTH THE VERDICT UPON WHICH YOU UNANIMOUSLY AGREE; AND THEN RETURN WITH YOUR VERDICT TO THE COURTROOM.

VERDICT FORMS -- JURY'S RESPONSIBILITY

IT IS PROPER TO ADD THE CAUTION THAT NOTHING SAID IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND NOTHING IN ANY FORM OF VERDICT PREPARED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE IS MEANT TO SUGGEST OR CONVEY IN ANY WAY OR MANNER ANY INTIMATION AS TO WHAT VERDICT I THINK YOU SHOULD FIND. WHAT THE VERDICT SHALL BE IS YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY.

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COURT AND JURY DURING DELIBERATIONS

IF IT BECOMES NECESSARY DURING YOUR DELIBERATIONS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COURT, YOU MAY SEND A NOTE BY A COURT SECURITY OFFICER, SIGNED BY YOUR FOREPERSON OR BY ONE OR MORE MEMBERS OF THE JURY. NO MEMBER OF THE JURY SHOULD EVER ATTEMPT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE COURT BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN A SIGNED WRITING, AND THE COURT WILL NEVER COMMUNICATE WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE JURY ON ANY SUBJECT TOUCHING THE MERITS OF THE CASE OTHERWISE THAN IN WRITING, OR ORALLY HERE IN OPEN COURT.

YOU WILL NOTE FROM THE OATH ABOUT TO BE TAKEN BY THE COURT SECURITY OFFICER THAT [S]HE TOO, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER PERSONS, ARE FORBIDDEN TO COMMUNICATE IN ANY WAY OR MANNER WITH ANY MEMBER OF THE JURY ON ANY SUBJECT TOUCHING THE MERITS OF THE CASE.

BEAR IN MIND THAT YOU ARE NEVER TO REVEAL TO ANY PERSON -- NOT EVEN TO THE COURT -- HOW THE JURY STANDS, NUMERICALLY OR OTHERWISE, ON THE QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU, UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE REACHED A UNANIMOUS VERDICT.

JURY VERDICT FORM 1

WE, THE JURY, FIND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ FOR VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. HAVING FOUND IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT MARTINEZ, WE ASSESS:

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT: $_____________________.

______________________ _______________________________________
DATE                                                             FOREPERSON        

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

JURY VERDICT FORM 2

WE, THE JURY, FIND AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR THE PLAINTIFF JOSE NAZARIO AND AGAINST DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNT: $____________________.

______________________ _______________________________________
DATE                                                             FOREPERSON        

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

JURY VERDICT FORM 3

WE, THE JURY, FIND THAT THE PLAINTIFF, JOSE NAZARIO, HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ ACTED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF, AND THEREFORE, WE FIND FOR THE DEFENDANT, OFFICER WILLIAM MARTINEZ, AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF, JOSE NAZARIO.

______________________ _______________________________________
DATE                                                             FOREPERSON        

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________