COMES NOW, Robert Groden (Plaintiff or Groden), and pursuant the Courts October 30, 2013 Order Setting Trial, Local Rule 26.2, and Rule 26(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, files this Plaintiffs Witness List, and for same would respectfully show unto the Court as follows: I. PLAINTIFFS WITNESSES Plaintiff may call the following witnesses to testify at trial: 1.) Peter A. Schulte, Esq. Schulte & Apgar, PLLC 4131 N. Central Expwy, Suite 680 Dallas, Texas 75204 (214) 521-2200 Plaintiffs Expert Witness
Mr. Schulte is Plaintiffs expert witness, and is of the opinion that the arrest, property seizure, and prosecution of Plaintiff by Defendant in this case were not appropriate, not based on probable cause, not supported by the law, and not justified and that Defendant Sergeant Frank Gorka should not be entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Schulte is expected to testify on and present evidence under Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the subject of the propriety of the arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff, as well as the property seizure, by Defendant and whether Defendant Gorka should be entitled to qualified immunity.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1256 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 2 Mr. Schulte is a licensed attorney in Texas, a former prosecutor, and former police officer. He continues to maintain both his Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education (TCLEOSE) Instructor License and his Peace Officer License. He teaches area police officers arrest, search, and seizure law at police academies in North Texas.
Mr. Schultes estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
2.) Nicola Longford c/o Randy A. Nelson Thompson, Coe, Cousins, & Irons, L.L.P. 700 N. Pearl Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor Dallas, Texas75201 (214) 871-8228
Ms. Longford is an employee of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, and was involved in development and execution of the plan to eliminate competitors of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza by wrongfully arresting Plaintiff Groden. Ms. Longford knew that the legal basis for Plaintiffs arrest was invalid, and she is expected to testify as to this.
Ms. Longfords estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
3.) Bradley Hamilton c/o Randy A. Nelson Thompson, Coe, Cousins, & Irons, L.L.P. 700 N. Pearl Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor Dallas, Texas75201 (214) 871-8228
Mr. Hamilton is a former employee of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, and was involved in development and execution of the plan to eliminate competitors of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza by wrongfully arresting Plaintiff Groden. Mr. Hamilton contacted the City of Dallas Police Department about Plaintiff prior to his wrongful arrest, and is expected to testify as to this.
Mr. Hamiltons estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
4.) Vincent Golbeck c/o Patricia M. De Le Garza Assistant City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7D North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Mr. Golbeck is a former police officer for the City of Dallas, and was involved in development and execution of the plan with The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza to eliminate Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID 1257 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 3 competitors of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza. Mr. Golbeck contacted Defendant Gorka about Plaintiff prior to his wrongful arrest, and is expected to testify regarding this.
Mr. Golbecks estimate length of direct examination is one (1) hour.
5.) Carla Newson c/o Patricia M. De Le Garza Assistant City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7D North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Ms. Newson is a former employee the City of Dallas, and signed the criminal Complaint dated July 13, 2010, wherein Plaintiff was wrongfully charged by Defendant Gorka. Ms. Newson is expected to testify as to whether the facts stated in the criminal Complaint she signed are true or false, and whether that Defendant Gorka actually provided her with valid grounds to charge Plaintiff.
Ms. Newsons estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
6.) Raquel Hernandez c/o Patricia M. De Le Garza Assistant City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7D North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Ms. Hernandez is a former employee the City of Dallas, and signed the criminal Complaint dated June 13, 2010, wherein Plaintiff was wrongfully charged by Defendant Gorka. Ms. Hernandez is expected to testify as to whether the facts stated in the criminal Complaint she signed are true or false, and whether Defendant Gorka actually provided her with valid grounds to charge Plaintiff.
Ms. Hernandezs estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
7.) Steve Worden 1301 E. Spring Valley Road Richardson, Texas 75081
Mr. Worden is a former employee the City of Dallas and conspired with The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza to eliminate the competitors of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, pursuant to which Plaintiff was wrongfully arrested by Defendant Frank Gorka. Mr. Worden knew that Chapter 32, Section 32-10 of the Dallas City Ordinance was not applicable, and is expected to testify as to this plan
Mr. Wordens estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID 1258 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 4 8.) Plaintiff Robert Groden c/o D. Bradley Kizzia Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 613-3350
Mr. Groden is the Plaintiff in this case and is knowledgeable about his First Amendment activities in Dealey Plaza in which he was engaged at the time of his unlawful arrest and incarceration by Defendant Gorka. He is also knowledgeable about the fact that he has engaged in those activities protected by the First Amendment for more than fifteen (15) years, as well as the periodic harassment and legally unjustified prosecution of unjustified charges against him by the City of Dallas. He is also knowledgeable about property that was wrongfully seized by Defendant Gorka and withheld from him by the Dallas Police Department. He is also knowledgeable about the damages resulting from Defendants wrongful, illegal, and unconstitutional actions. See Plaintiffs Fifth Amended Complaint on file herein for more specific allegations about which Plaintiff has knowledge.
Plaintiff Grodens estimate length of direct examination is two (2) hours.
9.) Defendant Sergeant Frank Gorka c/o James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Defendant Gorka is a named Defendant and a police officer for the City of Dallas Police Department. He is knowledgeable about the unjustified, illegal, and unconstitutional crackdown policy that the City of Dallas implemented prior to Plaintiffs unlawful arrest and incarceration. He is knowledgeable about the unlawful arrest and incarceration of Plaintiff, as well as the unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs property and the withholding thereof. He should be knowledgeable about the training provided by the City of Dallas Police Department related to the events that are the subject of this suit and the factual basis for why he is not entitled to qualified immunity. Defendant Gorka is also knowledgeable that the criminal Complaint filed against Plaintiff contained false information
Defendant Gorkas estimate length of direct examination is two (2) hours.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID 1259 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 5 10.) Kevin Johnson Platinum Security 400 North St. Paul Street Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 747-6660
Mr. Johnson may be an eyewitness to the Defendants illegal harassment and/or arrest of Plaintiff and may be knowledgeable about complaints leading to the Dallas Police Departments crackdown in Dealey Plaza and/or Plaintiffs arrest. Mr. Johnson may also be knowledgeable about the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plazas involvement in the illegal harassment, arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff by the City of Dallas Police Department. He may also be knowledgeable about the fact that his employer is not in good standing with the State of Texas.
Mr. Johnsons estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
11.) Joan Walne Contact information currently unknown at this time.
Ms. Walne may have knowledge about Chapter 32, Section 32-10 of the Dallas City Ordinance and its lack of application to Plaintiffs activities in Dealey Plaza, as well as the amendments to that Ordinance recently enacted by the Dallas City Council, and about the crackdown on vendors in Dealey Plaza.
Ms. Walnes estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
12.) Janet Hyde City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department c/o James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Ms. Hyde is or was an employee with the City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department. Plaintiff was referred to Ms. Hyde by Defendant Gorka concerning a possible permit regarding Plaintiffs activities in Dealey Plaza, but she told Plaintiff that no such permit or agreement existed. She may have knowledge about Chapter 32, Section 32-10 of the Dallas City Ordinance and its lack of application to Plaintiffs activities in Dealey Plaza, as well as the amendments to that Ordinance recently enacted by the Dallas City Council, and about the crackdown on vendors in Dealey Plaza.
Ms. Hydes estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID 1260 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 6 13.) Paul D. Dyer Contact information currently unknown at this time.
Mr. Dyer is former head of the City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department, and is knowledgeable about the recent amendments to Chapter 32, Section 32-10 of the Dallas City Ordinance, and that the purpose of the amendments was to clarify the Ordinance so as to prevent further arrest or prosecution of vendors like Plaintiff.
Mr. Dyers estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
14.) Robert Miklos Milby, PLLC 1909 Woodall Rodgers, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 220-1210
Mr. Miklos is knowledgeable about the City of Dallas efforts years ago to prosecute Plaintiff, but is and was then of the view that the ordinances in question were not legally enforceable against Plaintiff.
Mr. Miklos estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
15.) Willis Winters City of Dallas Parks and Recreation Department c/o James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Mr. Winters should have similar information to that of Ms. Walne above.
Mr. Winters estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
16.) Rodney Nevils City of Dallas Police Department c/o James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Rodney Nevils is a Dallas police officer. Officer Nevils participated in and/or witnessed Plaintiffs harassment by the Dallas Police Department. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID 1261 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 7 Mr. Nevils estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
Marshall Evans is Plaintiffs friend and co-worker. Mr. Evans witnessed Plaintiffs arrest and incarceration.
Mr. Evans estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
18.) Lieutenant Anthony Williams City of Dallas Police Department c/o James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 670-3519
Lt. A. Williams is a City of Dallas police officer who allegedly received complaints about Plaintiffs First Amendment activities in Dealey Plaza, and thereafter contacted Defendant Gorka to investigate. Lt. Williams had communications with Plaintiff before his arrest and told him he would initially be issued a ticket, but that did not happen on June 13, 2010.
Lt. Williams estimate length of direct examination is thirty (30) minutes.
19.) D. Bradley Kizzia Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 613-3350
Mr. Kizzia is of the opinion that Plaintiff has incurred reasonable and necessary attorneys fees and expenses due to his illegal arrest and criminal prosecution by Defendant and in connection with this case. Those fees and expenses are ongoing, but will likely exceed $100,000 and, Mr. Kizzia is of the opinion that Defendant should be ordered to pay all of such fees and expenses.
Mr. Kizzia is a licensed attorney, has practiced in Dallas, Texas for approximately thirty (30) years, and is familiar with the reasonable and necessary legal services, attorney's fees, charges and expenses incurred in the defense of the City's criminal prosecution of Plaintiff (trial court and appeal) and in the prosecution of this suit. Mr. Kizzia is of the opinion that Plaintiff should be awarded in excess of $100,000 in attorney's fees in this case.
Mr. Kizzias testimony will be presented by affidavit to the court, after the jury verdict. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID 1262 PLAINTIFFS WITNESS LIST Page | 8 Respectfully submitted,
s/ D. Bradley Kizzia D. BRADLEY KIZZIA State Bar No. 11547550 brad@brownfoxlaw.com SARAH B. SPARLING State Bar No. 24059659 sarah@brownfoxlaw.com BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 613-3350 Fax: (214) 613-3330
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Dated this 12 th day of May, 2014.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record on the 12 th day of May, 2014, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
s/ D. Bradley Kizzia D. BRADLEY KIZZIA
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 119 Filed 05/12/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID 1263 PAGE 1 OF 37 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
ROBERT GRODEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS and SERGEANT FRANK GORKA
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-cv-01280-F
PLAINTIFF ROBERT GRODENS PROPOSED JURY CHARGE AND QUESTIONS
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiff Robert J. Groden and files this his Proposed Jury Instructions and Questions. Respectfully submitted,
s/ D. Bradley Kizzia D. BRADLEY KIZZIA State Bar No. 11547550 brad@brownfoxlaw.com SARAH B. SPARLING State Bar No. 24059659 sarah@brownfoxlaw.com BROWN FOX KIZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 613-3350 Fax: (214) 613-3330
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Dated this 12 th day of May, 2014.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 37 PageID 1215 PAGE 2 OF 37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record on the 12 th day of May, 2014, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
s/ D. Bradley Kizzia D. BRADLEY KIZZIA
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 37 PageID 1216 PAGE 3 OF 37 MEMBERS OF THE JURY: Now that you have heard the evidence in the case, I will instruct you on the law you must apply. First, I will give you some general instructions which apply in every case: for example, instructions about burden of proof and how to judge the believability of witnesses. Then I will give you some specific rules of law about this particular case, and finally I will explain to you the procedures you should follow in your deliberations. After I instruct you on the law, the attorneys will have an opportunity to make their closing arguments. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened - that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts - it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. Answer each question from the facts as you find them. Do not decide who you think should win and then answer the questions accordingly. Your answers and your verdict must be unanimous. The Plaintiff in this case is Robert Groden, whom I will refer to as Groden or the Plaintiff. The Defendant in this case is Sergeant Frank Gorka, whom I will refer to as Gorka or the Defendant. Certain questions require a preponderance of the evidence for an affirmative answer. Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight and degree of credible evidence before you. In other words, a preponderance of the evidence means the amount of evidence that Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 37 PageID 1217 PAGE 4 OF 37 persuades you that a claim is more likely true than not true. Other questions require clear and convincing evidence, which is a greater burden of proof, for an affirmative answer. Clear and convincing evidence means that it is highly probable that a certain fact is true. In determining whether any fact has been proven by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing evidence, you may, unless otherwise instructed, consider the parties stipulations, testimony of all witnesses, regardless of who may have called them, and all exhibits received in evidence, regardless of who may have produced them. Groden has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and any subparts thereof. Groden has the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence on Questions 10, 12, and any subparts thereof. Gorka has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence on Question 11. You may have heard of the phrase proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a stricter standard that applies in criminal cases. It does not apply at all in this case. You should therefore put it out of your minds. As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. Remember that any statements, objections, or arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence. 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 in the case. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you. During the course of the trial, you have heard counsel make objections to evidence. It is the duty of the attorneys on each side of a case to object when the other side offers testimony or other evidence that the attorney believes is not properly admissible. You should not hold it against an attorney or his client because the attorney has made objections. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 4 of 37 PageID 1218 PAGE 5 OF 37 When I allowed testimony or other evidence to be introduced over the objection of any attorney, the Court was not indicating any opinion as to the weight or effect of such evidence, and you may give such evidence the significance you believe appropriate. If the Court sustained an objection to a question addressed to a witness, you are to disregard the question entirely and may draw no inference from the wording of it or speculate as to what the witness would have said if the witness had been permitted to answer. If I struck any testimony and instructed you to disregard it, you must do so. If I instructed you to consider an exhibit only for a limited purpose, you must do so. Do not assume from anything I may have done or said during the trial that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for the instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. You are the sole judges of the credibility or believability of each witness and the weight to be given to his or her testimony. You should carefully examine all the testimony given, the circumstances under which each witness has testified, and every matter in evidence tending to show whether a witness is worthy of belief. In weighing the testimony of a witness, you should consider the witnesss motive; any bias or prejudice the witness may have; the witnesss demeanor or manner while testifying; the witnesss interest, if any, in the outcome of the case; the witnesss candor, fairness and intelligence; the witnesss opportunity and ability to see or hear or know things that the witness testified about; the quality of the witnesss memory; and whether the witnesss testimony has been supported or contradicted by other credible evidence. You may accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 5 of 37 PageID 1219 PAGE 6 OF 37 In weighing the credibility of a witness, you may consider the fact that he has previously been convicted of a felony, a crime involving dishonesty or a false statement. Such a conviction does not necessarily destroy the witness credibility, but it is one of the circumstances you may take into account in determining the weight to give to his testimony. A witness may be impeached, or discredited, by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning some important fact, or by evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, that was different from the testimony the witness gave before you during the trial. If you believe any witness has been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony of that witness such credibility, if any, as you think it deserves. You should keep in mind, of course, that a simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the truth as he or she remembers it, because people may forget some things or remember other things inaccurately. So if a witness has made a misstatement, you need to consider whether that misstatement was an intentional falsehood or simply an innocent lapse of memory; and the significance of that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact, or only with an unimportant detail. 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. Two or more persons seeing an event may see or hear it differently. 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. While you should consider only the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 6 of 37 PageID 1220 PAGE 7 OF 37 experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts that have been established by the testimony and evidence. The testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to prove any fact, even if a greater number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if after considering all the other evidence, you believe that single witness. There are two types of evidence that you may consider in properly finding the truth as to the facts in the case. One is direct evidencesuch as testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidencethe proof of a chain of circumstances that indicates the existence or nonexistence of certain other facts. As a general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you find the facts from all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial. When knowledge of technical subject matter may be helpful to the jury, a person who has special training or experience in that technical fieldan expert witnessis permitted to state an opinion on those technical matters. However, you are not required to accept that opinion. As with any other witness, it is up to you to decide whether to rely upon it. In deciding whether to accept or rely upon the opinion of an expert witness, you may consider any bias of the witness, including any bias you may infer from evidence that the expert witness has been or will be paid for reviewing the case and testifying, or from evidence that he testifies regularly as an expert witness and his income from such testimony represents a significant portion of his income. Certain testimony has been presented to you through depositions. A deposition is the sworn, recorded answers to questions asked a witness in advance of the trial. Under some Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 7 of 37 PageID 1221 PAGE 8 OF 37 circumstances, that witnesss testimony may be presented, under oath, in the form of a deposition. Sometime before this trial, attorneys representing the parties in this case questioned the witness under oath. A court reporter was present and recorded the testimony. The questions and answers have been read and/or shown to you. This deposition testimony is entitled to the same consideration and is to be judged by you as to credibility and weighed and otherwise considered by you insofar as possible in the same way as if the witness had been present and had testified from the witness stand in court. In deciding the facts of this case, you must not be swayed by bias, prejudice, or favor as to any party. Our system of law does not permit jurors to be governed by prejudice, sympathy, or public opinion. The parties and the public expect that you will carefully and impartially consider all of the evidence in the case, follow the law as stated by the Court, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences. Any notes that you have taken during this trial are only aids to memory. If your memory should differ from your notes, then you should rely on your memory and not on the notes. The notes are not evidence. A juror who has not taken notes should rely on his or her independent recollection of the evidence and should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror about the testimony. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 8 of 37 PageID 1222 PAGE 9 OF 37 SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES Groden asserts that Gorka, while acting under color of authority of the State of Texas as a member of the Police Department of the City of Dallas, violated Grodens constitutional rights. The constitutional rights that Groden claims Gorka violated are: the right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process of law, the right to be secure in his person and property against unreasonable seizure, and the right to be free from arrest without probable cause. Gorka denies that he violated Grodens constitutional rights, and contends that his conduct was objectively reasonable. Groden also asserts that Gorka subjected him to false imprisonment and a malicious prosecution. Gorka denies that he subjected Groden to a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, and contends that he is entitled to official immunity. Groden asserts that he has suffered and will suffer mental anguish and emotional pain and suffering, damage to his reputation, loss of income, and loss of earning capacity and that he incurred reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in defending himself. 42 U.S.C. 1983 AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Groden has brought suit against Gorka under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides for redress of injuries, in the form of money damages, resulting from a violation of an individuals constitutional or federal statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law. Section 1983 provides that: every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper legal proceeding for redress. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 9 of 37 PageID 1223 PAGE 10 OF 37 In order to prevail on his claim under this statute, Groden must prove each of the following three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. That Gorka intentionally or recklessly committed acts that violated one or more of Grodens constitutional rights that I have described to you; 2. That in so doing, Gorka acted under color of the authority of the State of Texas; and 3. That Gorkas acts were the legal cause of Grodens damages. A person acts intentionally when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct challenged. A person acts recklessly with respect to the nature of his conduct or to the result of his conduct when he is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. You must first decide whether Gorka committed the acts that Groden claims that Gorka committed; and, if so, you must then decide whether Gorka was acting within or beyond the bounds of his authority under law. If Gorka acted within the limits of his lawful authority under law, then he did not deprive Groden of any right without due process of law. There is a clearly established constitutional right to be free from arrest without probable cause. A police officer has probable cause to arrest and detain an individual when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant in a person of reasonable caution the belief that a criminal offense has been or is being committed and that the individual to be arrested has committed that offense. A showing of probable cause requires more than mere suspicion but less evidence than that needed to support a conviction, which is beyond a reasonable doubt, or that needed to support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 10 of 37 PageID 1224 PAGE 11 OF 37 To succeed on his unlawful arrest claim, Groden must present evidence establishing misconduct that is more than mere negligence. Normally, a neutral magistrates determination that probable cause existed will shield an officer from a claim of unlawful arrest. However, if the officer, acting intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, fails to provide the magistrate with information that is critical to a finding of probable cause, or misrepresents a known fact, this may be considered as unreasonable or reckless behavior that may support liability for unlawful arrest. Groden must also prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the third element of his Section 1983 claimlegal causation. First, he must prove that the act or failure to act by Gorka was a cause-in-fact of injury or damage Groden suffered. An act or a failure to act is a cause-in- fact of an injury or damages if it appears from the evidence that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damages. Groden must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or failure to act by Gorka was a proximate cause of the damage Groden suffered. An act or omission is a proximate cause of Grodens injuries or damages if it appears from the evidence that the injury or damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act or omission. Whether Gorka had probable cause for his actions is measured at the time of his challenged actions. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY If you find that Groden has proven his claim, you must then consider Gorkas at the time of the incident at issue, and that he is therefore not liable. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of citizens. United States citizens are protected against an arrest without probable cause by virtue of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 11 of 37 PageID 1225 PAGE 12 OF 37 If, after considering the scope of discretion and responsibility generally given to police officers in the performance of their duties, and after considering all of the surrounding circumstances of the case as they would have reasonably appeared at the time that Gorka submitted his sworn affidavit to the magistrate for an arrest warrant, you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Groden has proven that Gorka, acting intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, failed to provide the magistrate with information that was critical to a finding of probable cause, or that he misrepresented a material fact, you must find for Groden. It is Grodens burden to prove that Gorka is not entitled to qualified immunity. If, however, you find that Gorkas actions were objectively reasonable, and he had a reasonable belief that his actions did not violate the constitutional rights of Groden, then you cannot find him liable for a violation of Section 1983, even if Grodens rights were in fact violated as a result of Gorkas actions. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS Groden claims damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of a depravation, under the color or state law, of a right secured to Groden by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and by a federal statute protecting the civil rights of all persons within the United States. The First Amended to the Constitution provides that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 12 of 37 PageID 1226 PAGE 13 OF 37 Groden alleges Defendant Gorka subjected Groden to depravation of rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Gorka denies that any of his actions during the time in question violated Grodens constitutional rights. Gorka claims that he was acting in good faith and with probable cause and that his actions were reasonable. Gorka further claims that he was not guilty of any fault or wrongdoing in regarding to the incident sued upon. Groden also claims damages alleged to have been proximately cause by this depravation. An injury or damage is proximately cause by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage to Groden, and that Grodens injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. Groden has the burden of proving each and every element of Grodens claim by a preponderance of the evidence, If you find Groden has not proved any one of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence, you must return a verdict for Gorka. FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS Groden claims damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of a depravation, under the color or state law, of a right secured to Groden by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by a federal statue protecting the civil rights of all persons within the United States. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution provides that: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 13 of 37 PageID 1227 PAGE 14 OF 37 describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Groden alleges Defendant Gorka subjected Groden to depravation of rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely the illegal search and seizure of his property. Gorka denies that any of his actions during the time in question violated Grodens constitutional rights. Gorka claims that he was acting in good faith and with probable cause and that his actions were reasonable. Gorka further claims that he was not guilty of any fault or wrongdoing in regarding to the incident sued upon. Groden also claims damages alleged to have been proximately cause by this depravation. An injury or damage is proximately cause by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage to Groden, and that Grodens injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. Groden has the burden of proving each and every element of Grodens claim by a preponderance of the evidence, If you find Groden has not proved any one of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence, you must return a verdict for Gorka. FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS Groden claims damages alleged to have been sustained as the result of a depravation, under the color or state law, of a right secured to Groden by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and by a federal statue protecting the civil rights of all persons within the United States. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 14 of 37 PageID 1228 PAGE 15 OF 37 The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Groden alleges Defendant Gorka subjected Groden to depravation of rights and privileges secured and protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely the right to due process of law. Gorka denies that any of his actions during the time in question violated Grodens constitutional rights. Gorka claims that he was acting in good faith and with probable cause and that his actions were reasonable. Gorka further claims that he was not guilty of any fault or wrongdoing in regarding to the incident sued upon. Groden also claims damages alleged to have been proximately cause by this depravation. An injury or damage is proximately cause by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage to Groden, and that Grodens injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission. Groden has the burden of proving each and every element of Grodens claim by a preponderance of the evidence, If you find Groden has not proved any one of the elements by a preponderance of the evidence, you must return a verdict for Gorka. FALSE IMPRISONMENT Groden also asserts a claim under state law for false imprisonment. False imprisonment is the willful detention of another without his consent and without legal justification. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 15 of 37 PageID 1229 PAGE 16 OF 37 To prove false imprisonment, Groden must show his arrest was (1) a willful detention; (2) performed without consent; and (3) without the authority of law. A person procures a criminal prosecution if his actions were enough to cause the prosecution, and but for his actions the prosecution would not have occurred. A person does not procure a criminal prosecution when the decision whether to prosecute is left to the discretion of another, including a law enforcement official or the grand jury, unless the person fails to fully and fairly disclose all material information known to him or knowingly provides false information. Causation is an element of a malicious prosecution case. To recover for malicious prosecution when the decision to prosecute is within anothers discretion, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that that decision to prosecute would not have been made but for the false information supplied by the defendant. MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Groden also asserts a claim under state law for malicious prosecution. Malicious prosecution occurs when a person initiates or procures, with malice, and without probable cause, the prosecution of an innocent person. To prove malicious prosecution, Groden must show the (1) commencement of a criminal prosecution against him, (2) initiated or procured by Gorka, (3) without probable cause, (4) terminated in favor of Groden, (5) who was innocent, (6) with malice, and (7) resulting in damage to Groden. Malice means ill will, bad or evil motive, or such gross indifference to the rights of others as to amount to a willful or wanton act. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 16 of 37 PageID 1230 PAGE 17 OF 37 A person procures a criminal prosecution if his actions were enough to cause the prosecution, and but for his actions the prosecution would not have occurred. A person does not procure a criminal prosecution when the decision whether to prosecute is left to the discretion of another, including a law enforcement official or the grand jury, unless the person fails to fully and fairly disclose all material information known to him or knowingly provides false information. Causation is an element of a malicious prosecution case. To recover for malicious prosecution when the decision to prosecute is within anothers discretion, a plaintiff has the burden of proving that that decision to prosecute would not have been made but for the false information supplied by the defendant. OFFICIAL IMMUNITY Gorka denies that he subjected Groden to a malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, and asserts official immunity as a defense to Grodens malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims, and he has the burden of proof on his defense. Peace officers are entitled to official immunity from liability for actions arising from the performance of: (1) their discretionary duties (2) in good faith (3) as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority. You are instructed that peace officers are performing discretionary duties within the scope of their authority when performing the duties generally assigned to them, including conducting criminal investigations, swearing out affidavits for arrest warrants, and testifying at examining hearings. A peace officer acts in good faith if his actions are objectively reasonable. In other words, to establish good faith, Gorka must prove that a reasonably prudent peace officer could have Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 17 of 37 PageID 1231 PAGE 18 OF 37 believed that the actions he took, or failed to take, were appropriate in light of the information possessed by Gorka at the time the conduct occurred. DAMAGES If Groden has proven his claims against Gorka by a preponderance of the evidence, you must determine the damages to which Groden is entitled. If you find that Gorka is liable to Groden, you must award such amount as you may find by a preponderance of the evidence constitutes full and just compensation for all of Grodens actual damages. These damages are called compensatory damages. The purpose of compensatory damages is to make Groden wholethat is, to compensate Groden for any damage that he has suffered. You also will be asked to determine if Gorka is liable for punitive damages, and, if so, you will be asked to fix the amount of those damages. Because the method of determining punitive damages and compensatory damages differ, I will instruct you separately on punitive damages. You should not interpret the fact that I have given instructions about Grodens damages as task first to decide whether Gorka is liable. I am instructing you on damages only so that you will have guidance in the event you decide that Gorka is liable and that Groden is entitled to recover money from Gorka. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES You may award compensatory damages only for injuries that Groden has proven were proximately caused by Gorkas allegedly wrongful conduct. If you decide to award damages to Groden, they must be fair compensation for all of Grodens damages, no more and no less. You should not award compensatory damages for speculative injuries, but only for those injuries which Groden has actually suffered or that Groden is reasonably certain to suffer in the future. However, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they include Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 18 of 37 PageID 1232 PAGE 19 OF 37 both the mental and physical aspects of injury, tangible and intangible. They are an attempt to make a plaintiff whole, or to restore him to the position she would have been in if the incident had not happened. If you decide to award compensatory damages, you should be guided by dispassionate common sense. Computing damages may be difficult, but you must not let that difficulty lead you to engage in arbitrary guesswork. On the other hand, the law does not require that Groden prove the amount of his losses with mathematical precision, but only with as much definiteness and accuracy as the circumstances permit. You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of damages, drawing reasonable inferences where you find them appropriate from the facts and circumstances in evidence. You should consider the following elements of damages, to the extent you find that Groden has established such damages by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) mental anguish and emotional pain and suffering sustained in the past or reasonably certain to be sustained in the future; (2) damage to reputation sustained in the past or reasonably certain to be sustained in the future; (3) loss of income that Groden sustained in the past or that he is reasonably certain to sustain in the future; (4) loss of earning capacity that Groden has sustained in the past or is reasonably certain to sustain in the future; (5) the value of the property seized from Groden; and (6) his legal expenses, including the costs of bail, reasonable attorneys fees, and investigative costs in defense of the criminal case. Some of these damages, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, are intangible things about which no evidence of value is required. In awarding these damages, you are not determining value, but you should award an amount that will fairly compensate Groden for his Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 19 of 37 PageID 1233 PAGE 20 OF 37 injuries. There is no exact standard for fixing the compensation to be awarded for these elements of damage. Any award that you make should be fair in the light of the evidence. In considering the damages of Groden, if any, you are to consider only the actual damages suffered by him as outlined in these instructions and not base your award, if any, on an abstract value of a constitutional right unaccompanied by actual injury. Mental anguish implies a relatively high degree of pain and distress; it is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment, although it may include all of these, and it includes mental sensation of pain resulting from such painful emotions such as grief, severe disappointment, indignation, wounded pride, shame, despair, and public humiliation. PUNITIVE DAMAGES If you find that Gorka is liable, you are also to decide whether Groden is entitled to an award of punitive damages. The function of punitive damages is to punish a defendant for malicious or shocking conduct and to deter similar conduct by others. Whether you decide to award any punitive damages for Grodens claims under 1983 that Gorka acted willfully, maliciously, or with callous and reckless disregard of Grodens constitutional rights. A willful and malicious act is one that is knowingly done out of ill will, spite, evil motive or intent or is plainly intended to harm another. One acts with reckless indifference to the rights of others when he acts in disregard of a high and excessive degree of danger about which he knows, or which would be apparent to a reasonable person in his condition. To recover punitive damages for false imprisonment, Groden must show by clear and convincing evidence that the harm for which he seeks recovery resulted from malice. To recover punitive damages for malicious prosecution, Groden must show by clear and convincing evidence that the harm for which he seeks recovery results from malice. If you determine that Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 20 of 37 PageID 1234 PAGE 21 OF 37 Gorkas conduct was so shocking and offensive as to justify an award of punitive damages, you may exercise your discretion to award those damages. The law does not require you to award punitive damages; however, if you decide to award punitive damages, you must use sound reason in setting the amount of the damages. The amount of an award of punitive damages must not reflect bias, prejudice, or sympathy toward any party. It should be presumed a plaintiff has been made whole by compensatory damages, so punitive damages should be awarded only if a defendant's misconduct, after having paid compensatory damages, is so reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 21 of 37 PageID 1235 PAGE 22 OF 37 JURY QUESTIONS Question l:
Did Groden prove that Gorka, acting intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, illegal arrest Groden seize his property and incarcerate him?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 2.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 22 of 37 PageID 1236 PAGE 23 OF 37 Question 2:
Did Groden prove that Gorkas actions, as found by you in answer to Question l, were the cause- in-fact and proximate cause of injury to Groden?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 3.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 23 of 37 PageID 1237 PAGE 24 OF 37 Question 3:
Did Groden prove that Gorka maliciously prosecuted him?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 4.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 24 of 37 PageID 1238 PAGE 25 OF 37 Question 4:
Did Groden prove that Groden was falsely imprisoned by Gorka without legal authority or probable case?
Answer "Yes" or "No": ___________________
Proceed to Question 5.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 25 of 37 PageID 1239 PAGE 26 OF 37 Question 5:
Did Groden prove that but for Gorkas actions, the prosecution of Groden would not have occurred?
Answer "Yes" or "No": ___________________
Proceed to Question 6. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 26 of 37 PageID 1240 PAGE 27 OF 37 Question 6:
Did Groden prove that Gorka violated his First Amendment rights?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 7. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 27 of 37 PageID 1241 PAGE 28 OF 37 Question 7:
Did Groden prove that Gorka violated his Fourth Amendment rights?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 8. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 28 of 37 PageID 1242 PAGE 29 OF 37 Question 8:
Did Groden prove that Gorka violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights?
Answer Yes or No: ___________________
Proceed to Question 9.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 29 of 37 PageID 1243 PAGE 30 OF 37 Question 9:
What sum of money, if any, if now paid in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Groden for is compensatory damages which were directly and proximately caused by the conduct by Gorka found in your answer to Question l or 3 or both? In answering this question, you may consider the following categories of damages. Do not include interest on any amount of damages you may find. Answer in dollars and cents, if any, or zero.
a. Mental anguish and emotional pain and suffering Groden sustained in the past.
Answer: ________________
b. Mental anguish and emotional pain and suffering that in reasonable certainty Groden will sustain in the future.
Answer: ________________
c. Damage to his reputation that Groden sustained in the past.
Answer: ________________
d. Damage to his reputation that in reasonable certainty Groden will sustain in the future.
Answer: ________________
e. Loss of income that Groden sustained in the past.
Answer: ________________
f. Loss of income that in reasonable certainty Groden will sustain in the future.
Answer: ________________
g. Loss of earning capacity that Groden has sustained in the past.
Answer: ________________
h. Loss of earning capacity that in reasonable certainty Groden will sustain in the future.
Answer: ________________
i. Value of property seized from Groden
Answer: ________________
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 30 of 37 PageID 1244 PAGE 31 OF 37 j. Legal expenses, including costs of bail, reasonable attorneys fees, and investigative costs in defense of the criminal case.
Answer: ________________
Proceed to Question 10.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 31 of 37 PageID 1245 PAGE 32 OF 37 Question 10(a):
Did Groden prove that Gorkas actions, as found by you in your answer to Question 1, were willful, malicious, or were done in callous and reckless disregard of Grodens constitutional rights?
Answer: ________________
Question 10(b):
What amount of punitive damages, if any, should be assessed against Gorka for his violations of Grodens constitutional rights? Answer in dollars and cents, if any, or zero.
Answer: ________________
Proceed to Question 11. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 32 of 37 PageID 1246 PAGE 33 OF 37 Question 11:
Did Gorka prove that he is entitled to official immunity?
Answer: ________________
Proceed to Question 12.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 33 of 37 PageID 1247 PAGE 34 OF 37 Question 12:
What amount of punitive damages, if any, should be assessed against Gorka for his malicious prosecution of Groden? Answer in dollars and cents, if any, or zero.
Answer: ________________
This concludes the Questions you are to answer. The foreperson should sign and date the verdict form at the last page. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 34 of 37 PageID 1248 PAGE 35 OF 37 FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
To reach a verdict, all of you must agree. Your verdict must be unanimous. Your deliberations will be secret. You will never have to explain your verdict to anyone. It is your sworn duty as jurors to discuss the case with one another in an effort to reach agreement if you can do so. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after full consideration of the evidence with the other members of the jury. While you are discussing the case, do not hesitate to re-examine your own opinion and change your mind if you become convinced that you are wrong. However, do not give up your honest beliefs solely because the others think differently, or merely to finish the case. Remember that in a very real way you are judges-judges of the facts. Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. I want to advise you that although our court reporter has taken down all of the testimony, it is not done in such a way that we can read back or furnish testimony to you at your request. Only when you have a specific disagreement as to a particular witnesss testimony on a specific subject can we attempt to obtain that information for you. If you need to communicate with the Court during your deliberations, the foreperson should write the message and give it to the court security officer. The Court will always first show the attorneys your question and my response before the Court answers your question. The Court will either reply to you in writing or bring you back into the courtroom to answer your message. I caution you, however, with respect to any message or question you might send, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at the time. When you retire to the jury room to deliberate, you will be given this charge and the exhibits that the Court has admitted into evidence. You should select one of your members as your foreperson, who will help to guide your deliberations and will speak for you here in the Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 35 of 37 PageID 1249 PAGE 36 OF 37 courtroom. During your deliberations you will set your own work schedule, deciding for yourselves when and how frequently you wish to recess and for how long. If you recess during your deliberations, follow all of the instructions that I have given you concerning your conduct during the trial. After you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson must fill in your answers to the written questions and sign and date the verdict form. Unless instructed otherwise, you are not to disclose your numerical division on any question. Finally, do not reveal your answers to the questions until I direct you to do so. After you have reached a verdict, you are not required to talk with anyone about the case. You may now retire to the jury room to conduct your deliberations.
Signed this ____________ day of ____, 2014.
DAVID G. GODBEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 36 of 37 PageID 1250 PAGE 37 OF 37 VERDICT OF THE JURY
We, the jury, have answered the above and foregoing questions as indicated, and herewith return the same into Court as our verdict
Signed this ____________ day of ____, 2014.
FOREPERSON
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 117 Filed 05/12/14 Page 37 of 37 PageID 1251
Defendants Witness List Groden v. Gorka, Civil Action No. 3:110-cv-1280-N Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROBERT GRODEN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. 3:10-CV-1280-N
FRANK GORKA, Defendant. DEFENDANTS WITNESS LIST TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Pursuant to the Courts Scheduling Order, entered on October 30, 2013 (ECF #109), Defendant Frank Gorka (Gorka) files his list of witnesses to be called in his case-in-chief. 1. Witness Name: Frank Gorka Estimated length of direct examination: 2.00 hours Gorka is a Dallas police Sergeant. As a brief summary of the substance of Gorkas testimony, Defendants disclose: Gorka will testify about his background, training as a police officer, specifically including instruction received on Dallas Police Department (DPD) general orders relating to the laws of arrest. Gorka will testify that he observed Robert Groden selling merchandise at Dealey Plaza Park on June 13, 2010 and had previously observed the same activity on June 12, 2010. Should the Court view the June 19, 2010 incident relevant, Gorka will testify he also responded to a call at a parking lot near Dealey Plaza on June 19, 2010 and attempted to resolve a dispute between the parking lot representative and Groden. Gorka will testify that all of his actions regarding Groden were performed within and pursuant to the scope of his duties as a police officer for the DPD, which duties generally include the investigation, apprehension, and arrest of persons who have violated Texas laws. Gorka will testify that at all times relevant to his actions, he was acting within a reasonable belief that his actions were proper and legal and that his conduct did not violate any clearly established statutory or constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Gorka will testify that he believed that probable cause existed to arrest Groden. Gorka will testify that his position as a police officer requires the exercise of official discretion, and that all of his actions with respect to his criminal investigation and seizure of Groden were within the scope of his discretionary authority as a police officer. Gor ka will testify that, at all relevant times, he acted in good faith, without malice or ill-will toward Groden, and without intent to deprive Groden of any legally protected right. Gorka will testify that he is a TCLEOSE-certified peace officer, and received training regarding the laws of arrest. Gor ka will testify that at all times relevant to Grodens Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1192
Defendants Witness List Groden v. Gorka, Civil Action No. 3:110-cv-1280-N Page 2 claim, that he was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a Dallas police officer, and that he was acting under color of state law. 2. Witness Name: Rodney Nevils 1
Estimated length of direct examination: .50 hours Nevils is a Dallas police officer. Nevils will testify generally about his background, training and experience as a police officer, and his involvement with an incident which occurred on June 19, 2010 at a parking lot near Dealey Plaza Park. Nevils will testify that he is a TCLEOSE- certified peace officer and was employed by the City of Dallas as a police officer, and received training regarding the laws of arrest. As a brief summary of the substance of Nevilss testimony, Defendant discloses: At about 1:00 p.m. on June 19, 2010, Nevils responded to a call from the Dallas Downtown Safety Patrol Dispatcher to an incident at a parking lot located at 400 North Houston Street, Dallas, Texas. Frank Gorka was also present. A representative of the parking lot advised Nevils and Gorka that Mr. Robert Groden was selling videos and magazines from his parked vehicle in violation of the terms of his parking privileges. Sergeant Gorka advised Mr. Groden that until he could produce an official document granting vending privileges, he would have to refrain from such activity in the parking lot. No one was cited or arrested during this incident. 3. Witness Name: Kevin Johnson Estimated length of direct examination: .50 hours Kevin Johnson is a representative of the Platinum Security, security for the Sixth Floor Museum. As a brief summary of the substance of Johnsons testimony, Defendant discloses: At about 1:00 p.m. on June 19, 2010, Johnson observed Robert Groden selling merchandise from his vehicle which was parked at the commercial parking lot located at 400 North Houston Street, Dallas. Johnson was present when Nevils and Gorka investigated the incident. 4. Witness Name: Scott Holt Estimated length of direct examination: .50 hours Holt is a surveyor for the City of Dallas. He is as an expert witness. He will testify concerning his review of property records and his expert opinion that Dealey Plaza Park is a public park owned and managed by the City of Dallas. As a brief summary of the substance of Holts testimony, Defendants disclose: He is a surveyor licensed by the State of Texas with 36 years experience;
1 Defendant has filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of the June 19, 2010. If that motion is granted, Defendant will not call witnesses Nevils and Johnson. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1193
Defendants Witness List Groden v. Gorka, Civil Action No. 3:110-cv-1280-N Page 3 As Survey Program Manager for the City of Dallas, he maintains the City of Dallass survey records vault; At the request of attorneys in this case, he has reviewed historical City of Dallas deeds and maps of real property bounded on the North by the original alignment of Elm Street, on the South by the original alignment of Commerce Street, on the West by the Triple Underpass, and on the East by Houston Street; He has reviewed ordinances and minutes of the City of Dallas and Dallas Park Board; Based upon his review of historical deeds and other documents, and within a reasonable degree of surveying probability, it is Mr. Holts opinion that the property now known as Dealey Plaza has been maintained by the City of Dallas since 1933 as a public park and has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Dallas Park Board for such use. . Respectfully submitted,
WARREN M. S. ERNST Dallas City Attorney
s/James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney Texas Bar No. 24040354 james.butt@dallascityhall.com
Jason G. Schuette Executive Assistant City Attorney Texas Bar No. 17827020 jason.schuette@dallascityhall.com
City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-670-3519 Telecopier: 214-670-0622
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1194
Defendants Witness List Groden v. Gorka, Civil Action No. 3:110-cv-1280-N Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 12 May 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: D. Bradley Kizzia Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson 750 North Saint Paul Street Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attorney for Plaintiff s/ James C. Butt Assistant City Attorney
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 113 Filed 05/12/14 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1195
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ROBERT GRODEN, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. 3:10-CV-1280-N
FRANK GORKA, Defendant. DEFENDANT GORKAS PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND INTERROGATORIES TO THE HONORABLE COURT: Pursuant to this Courts directive to the parties at the pretrial conference, Defendant, Frank Gorka (Gorka), submits his proposed jury instructions and jury interrogatories. I. PARTIES CONTENTIONS Grodens Contentions (To be provided by Plaintiff) Gorkas Contentions Gorka denies Grodens allegations and contends that he did not arrest Groden without probable cause to believe that Groden had committed an offense. Rather, Gorka asserts that his actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances as reasonably perceived by Gorka. Gorka also asserts his entitlement to qualified immunity because at all relevant times he was discharging his official duties as a Dallas police officer and was not clearly incompetent, did not violate clearly established law of which a reasonable person would have known, and did not knowingly violate the law. A reasonable police officer in Gorkas circumstances could have believed that Grodens seizure was lawful. Gorka contends that Groden is not entitled to recover any damages, or any attorneys fees Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1204
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 2 or costs. II. REQUESTED INSTRUCTIONS AND INTERROGATORIES Requested Instruction Number 1 (Introductory Information on Section 1983 Claims) INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTIONS: 42 U.S.C. 1983 Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code allows a citizen to seek redress by way of damages against any person who, acting under color of state law or custom, intentionally deprives that citizen of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. In order to prove a claim under this statute, a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence each of the following elements: (1) that the defendant intentionally committed acts which operated to deprive the plaintiff of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States; (2) that the defendant acted under color of law; and (3) that the defendants acts were the legal cause of the plaintiffs damages. In this case the parties have stipulated, or agreed, that Gorka acted under color of state law and you must accept that fact as proven. Source: This instruction is taken from other jury charges used by this Court. Requested Instruction Number 2 (Summary of the Plaintiffs Contentions) The Plaintiff, Robert Groden, claims that the Defendant, Frank Gorka, while acting under color of authority of the State of Texas, as a Sergeant of the Police Department of the City of Dallas, intentionally violated Grodens constitutional rights. Gorka denies that he violated Grodens constitutional rights, and contends that his conduct was objectively reasonable. If you find that Gorka was merely negligent, even if you find that Groden was injured as a result of those acts, you must return a verdict for Gorka. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 2 of 11 PageID 1205
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 3 The constitutional rights that Groden claims that Gorka violated are these: 1. The right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Under the Constitution of the United States, a citizen has both the right to his liberty and the right not to be arrested without due process of law. Those rights are secured by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Source: This instruction is taken from other jury charges used by this Court. Requested Instruction Number 3 (Plaintiffs Unlawful Seizure Claim) Groden claims that he was arrested and deprived of liberty without due process of law. This means he was deprived of liberty without authority of law. You must first decide whether Gorka committed the acts that Groden claims Gorka committed; and, if so, you must then decide whether Gorka was acting within or beyond the bounds of his lawful authority under law. If Gorka acted within the limits of his lawful authority under law, then he did not deprive Groden of any right without due process of law. In that regard, you are instructed that a police officer may detain a person when the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity. An officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officers belief that criminal activity is occurring or has occurred. You are further instructed that a police officer has the right to arrest a person without a warrant whenever the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has, is committing, or has committed, a felony or misdemeanor offense. A police officer has probable cause to detain and arrest an individual when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 3 of 11 PageID 1206
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 4 trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant in a person of reasonable caution the belief that an offense has been or is being committed. In dealing with probable cause we deal with probabilities. These are not technical considerations, but rather factual and practical ones of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent persons, not legal technicians, act. A showing of probable cause requires far less evidence than that sufficient to support a conviction. If an officer has probable cause that an individual has committed even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he may, without violating the Fourth Amendment, arrest the offender. Groden has the burden of proving that the Gorka lacked probable cause to arrest him at the time of the incident in question. Under the Dallas City Code at the time of Grodens arrest, it was unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any food, drinks, confections, merchandise or services in areas under its control of the park board unless such person has a written agreement or a permit issued from the office of the park board permitting the sale of such items.
Source: Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Civil (2008), section 10.1. Defendants modifications unlink the lawfulness of an officers conduct from the limitations of state law, per the Supreme Courts holding in Virginia v. Moore, 533 U.S. 164, 177-78 (2008) (holding that constitutionality of an officers conduct must be judged under constitutional standards, without regard to limitations imposed by state law). Specific offenses, however, are defined by reference to state law. Authority to engage citizens for purposes of investigating potential criminal activity is provided by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2010). Reasonable suspicion exists when the detaining officer can point to specific and articulable facts that, when taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the . . . seizure. United States v. Estrada, 459 F.3d 627, 631 (5th Cir. 2006). Reviewing courts making reasonable suspicion determinations must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 4 of 11 PageID 1207
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 5 Probable cause instructions were derived from Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175 (1949); United States v. Woolery, 670 F.2d 113, 515 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ashcroft, 607 F.2d 1167, 1170 (5th Cir. 1979). See also, e.g., Haggerty v. Texas Southern University, 391 F.3d 653, 656 (5th Cir. 2004) (probable cause requires more than a bare suspicion but less than a preponderance of evidence); United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 2001) (same); United States v. Garcia, 179 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 1999) (probable cause is something more than bare suspicion, but need not reach the fifty percent mark.). Atwater v. LagoVista, 532 U.S. v. 318, 354 (2001) Dallas City Code Section 32-10. Requested Instruction Number 4 (Proximate Cause) Groden must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or failure to act by Gorka was a cause-in-fact of the damage Groden suffered. An act or a failure to act is a cause-in-fact of an injury or damages if it appears from the evidence that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damages. Groden must also prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the act or failure to act by Gorka was a proximate cause of the damage Groden suffered. An act or omission is a proximate cause of a plaintiffs injuries or damages if it appears from the evidence that the injury or damage was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the act or omission. You must determine whether an act of failure was the cause-in-fact of the damage separately as to Gorkas conduct. Source: Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Civil (2006), section 10.2. Requested Instruction Number 5 (Instructions Regarding Qualified Immunity) If you find that Groden has proven his claim, you must then consider Gorkas defense that his conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules clearly established at the time of the incident in issue and that Gorka is therefore not liable. Police officers are presumed to know about the clearly established constitutional rights of Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 5 of 11 PageID 1208
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 6 citizens. (Announce here the Courts ruling on what constitutional right involved was clearly established.) If, after considering the scope of discretion and responsibility generally given to police officers in the performance of their duties, and after considering all of the surrounding circumstances of the case as they would have reasonably appeared at the time of the arrest, you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Groden has proved either (1) that Gorka was plainly incompetent or that (2) he knowingly violated the law regarding Grodens constitutional rights, you must find for Groden. If, however, you find that Gorka had a reasonable belief that his actions did not violate Grodens constitutional rights, then you cannot find Gorka liable even if Grodens rights were in fact violated as a result of Gorkas objectively reasonable action. Source: Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Civil (2006), section 10.2. Requested Instruction Number 6 (General Instructions on Damages) If you find that Gorka is liable to Groden, you must award the amount you find by a preponderance of the evidence as full and just compensation for all of Grodens damages. You also will be asked to determine if Gorka is liable for punitive damages, and, if so, you will be asked to fix the amount of those damages. Because the method of determining punitive damages and compensatory damages differ, I will instruct you separately on punitive damages. The instructions I now give you apply only to your award, if any, of compensatory damages. Compensatory damages are not allowed as a punishment against a party. Such damages cannot be based on speculation, for it is only actual damageswhat the law calls compensatory damagesthat are recoverable. However, compensatory damages are not restricted to actual loss of time or money; they include both the mental and physical aspects of injury, tangible and intangible. They are an attempt to make the plaintiff whole, or to restore him to the position he Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 6 of 11 PageID 1209
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 7 would have been in if the incident had not happened. You should consider the following elements of damages, to the extent you find that Groden has established such damages by a preponderance of the evidence: physical pain and suffering including physical disability, impairment, and inconvenience, and the effect of the plaintiff's injuries and inconvenience on the normal pursuits and pleasures of life; mental anguish and feelings of economic insecurity caused by disability; and income loss in the past. Some of these damages, such as mental or physical pain and suffering, are intangible things about which no evidence of value is required. In awarding these damages, you are not determining value, but you should award an amount that will fairly compensate Groden for his injuries. Source: Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Civil (2006), section 4.8. Requested Instruction Number 7 (Instruction on Mental Anguish) Mental anguish implies a relatively high degree of pain and distress; it is more than mere disappointment, anger, resentment, or embarrassment, although it may include all of these, and it includes mental sensation of pain resulting from such painful emotions such as grief, severe disappointment, indignation, wounded pride, shame, despair, and public humiliation. Source: See Trevino v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 582 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tex.Civ.App.Corpus Christi 1979, no writ). Requested Instruction Number 8 In considering Grodens damages, if any, you are to consider only the actual damages suffered by him as outlined in these instructions and not base your award, if any, on an abstract value of a constitutional right. The abstract value of a constitutional right may not form the basis for a claim of violation of civil rights. Source: Memphis Community Sch. Dist. v. Stachusa, 477 U.S. 299, 308 (1986). Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 7 of 11 PageID 1210
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 8 Requested Instruction Number 9 You should not interpret the fact that I have given instructions about Grodens damages as an indication in any way that I believe that Groden should, or should not, win this case. Source: Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions Civil (2006), section 2.22. Requested Jury Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, and 4 [ Unlawful Arrest by Gorka ] Question No. 1 Did Groden prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Gorka arrested Groden without probable cause that Groden committed a felony or misdemeanor offense in Gorkas presence on June 13, 2010? Answer Yes or No. Groden has the burden of proof as to this question. ANSWER: If you have answered Yes to Question No. 1, then proceed to Question No. 2. Other- wise, proceed to page __________ where the foreperson should sign and date the verdict form and return this Charge to the Court. Question No. 2 Were the actions of Gorka in arresting Groden a direct and proximate cause of any injury or damages to Groden? Answer Yes or No. Groden has the burden of proof as to this question. ANSWER: If you have answered Yes to Question No. 2, then proceed to Question No. 3. Otherwise, proceed to page where the foreperson should sign and date the verdict form and return this Charge to the Court. Question No. 3 Did Groden prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no reasonable officer could Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 8 of 11 PageID 1211
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 9 have believed that Grodens arrest by Gorka on June 13, 2010 was lawful in light of clearly established law and the information possessed by him? Answer Yes or No. Groden has the burden of proof as to this question. ANSWER: If you have answered No to Question No. 3, then proceed to Question No. 4. Otherwise, proceed to page _______ and the foreperson should sign and date the verdict form and return this Charge to the Court. Question No. 4 What sum of money, if any, now paid in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate Groden for the compensatory damages you have found Gorka caused Groden as a result of the actions found by you in answer to Question 1? Answer in dollars and cents, if any, or zero. Plaintiff has the burden of proof as to this question. Consider the elements of damages listed below and none other. Consider each element separately. Do not include interest on any amount of damages that you find. A. [ insert elements of damage as appropriate ] $ Requested Instruction Number 5 (Instructions for Punitive Damages) If you awarded compensatory damages under Questions 4 or 8, then you are also to decide whether Groden is entitled to the award of any punitive damages. If you did not award compensatory damages under Question 4, then the jury foreperson should sign and date the verdict form and return the Charge to the Court. The function of punitive damages is to punish a defendant for malicious conduct and to deter similar conduct by others. Whether you decide to award any punitive damages should be based on whether you find that Gorka acted willfully, deliberately, maliciously, or with reckless disregard of Grodens constitutional rights. Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 9 of 11 PageID 1212
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 10 A willful and malicious act is one that is knowingly done out of ill will, spite, evil motive or intent or is plainly intended to harm another. A police officer cannot be liable for punitive damages unless the plaintiff establishes that the officer acted willfully, intentionally, or with a reckless and callous indifference to the civil rights of the plaintiff. Source: See Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30 (1983); Longoria By Longoria v. Wilson, 730 F.2d 300, 305 (5th Cir. 1985); Young v. City of New Orleans, 751 F.2d 794, 799-800 (5th Cir. 1985). Requested Jury Question 5 (a) Were Gorkas actions as found by you in answer to Question 1 deliberate, willful, or made with reckless disregard of Grodens constitutional rights? Answer (Yes or No): If you answer yes to Question 5(a), then proceed to Question 5(b). Otherwise, the foreperson should sign and date the verdict and return this Charge to the Court. (b) What amount of punitive damages, if any, should be assessed against Gorka for his act(s) that you found to be deliberate, willful, or made with reckless disregard? Answer in dollars and cents, if any, or zero. Answer: This completes the Questions. The Jury Foreperson should sign and date this verdict form and return this Charge to the Court.
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 10 of 11 PageID 1213
Defendant Gorkas Proposed Jury Instructions and Interrogatories Robert Groden v. Frank Gorka; No. 3:10-CV-1280-N Page 11 Respectfully submitted,
WARREN M. S. ERNST Dallas City Attorney
s/ James C. Butt Senior Assistant City Attorney Texas Bar No. 24040354 james.butt@dallascityhall.com
s/ Jason G. Schuette Executive Assistant City Attorney Texas Bar No. 17827020 jason.schuette@dallascityhall.com
City Attorneys Office 1500 Marilla Street, Room 7B North Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214-670-3519 Telecopier: 214-670-0622
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on 12 May 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of the court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following attorneys of record who have consented in writing to accept this Notice as service of this document by electronic means: D. Bradley Kizzia Brown Fox Kizzia & Johnson 750 North Saint Paul Street Suite 1320 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attorney for Plaintiff s/ James C. Butt Senior Assistant City Attorney
Case 3:10-cv-01280-N Document 116 Filed 05/12/14 Page 11 of 11 PageID 1214
Margarito Salmon, Magdalena Salmon, Individually and as Next Friend for Margarito Salmon, Jr. v. Martin R. Schwarz and Arturo A. Gonzalez, 948 F.2d 1131, 10th Cir. (1991)
Velma Dodd, Administratrix of the Estate of Dwayne Dodd v. City of Norwich and Eric Larson, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Norwich Police Officer, 827 F.2d 1, 2d Cir. (1987)