IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION



KENNETH D. SHERMAN, DONALD McNEAL, ARMANDO BARKER, and TONYELL McNEAL,

 

Plaintiffs,

No. C 02-4047-MWB

vs.


PRELIMINARY AND

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY


NICK KASOTAKIS, Individually and d/b/a THE HORIZONS FAMILY RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

____________________



TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF

NO. 4 - ELEMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

NO. 5 - ORDER OF TRIAL

NO. 6 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

NO. 7 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

NO. 8 - STIPULATED FACTS

NO. 9 - DEPOSITIONS

NO. 10 - INTERROGATORIES

NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS

NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES

NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING

NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS DURING TRIAL

 

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

NO. 3 - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICES OF A PUBLIC

RESTAURANT

NO. 4 - DAMAGES—IN GENERAL

NO. 5 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

NO. 6 - NOMINAL DAMAGES

NO. 7 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES

NO. 8 - DELIBERATIONS


VERDICT FORM


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY

INSTRUCTIONS

 

 

 

        Members of the jury, before the lawyers make their opening statements, I give you these preliminary instructions to help you better understand the trial and your role in it. Consider these instructions, together with any oral instructions given to you during the trial and the written final instructions given at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case. In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

 


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

 

        It will be your duty to decide from the evidence what the facts are. You, and you alone, are the judges of the facts. You will hear the evidence, decide what the facts are and then apply those facts to the law which I will give you in these preliminary instructions, any instructions given during the trial, and in the final instructions at the conclusion of the case. You will then deliberate and reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

        You have been chosen and sworn as jurors in this case to try the issues of fact presented by the parties. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I will give it to you.

        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, including the plaintiffs and the defendant, stand equal before the law, and are entitled to the same fair consideration by you.

        You should not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - BURDEN OF PROOF

 

        In these instructions, you are told that your verdict depends on whether you find certain facts have been proved. The burden of proving a fact is upon the party whose claim depends upon that fact. In this case, unless I tell you otherwise, the plaintiffs are the parties with the burden of proof.

        A party with the burden of proof must prove facts by the “greater weight of the evidence.” To prove something “by the greater weight of the evidence” means to prove that it is more likely true than not true. The “greater weight of the evidence” is determined by considering all of the evidence and deciding which evidence is more believable. If, on any issue in the case, you find that the evidence is equally balanced, then you cannot find that the issue has been proved.

        The “greater weight of the evidence” is not necessarily determined by the greater number of witnesses or exhibits a party has presented. The testimony of a single witness that produces in your mind a belief in the likelihood of truth is sufficient for proof of any fact and would justify a verdict in accordance with such testimony. This is so, even though a number of witnesses may have testified to the contrary, if, after consideration of all of the evidence in the case, you hold a greater belief in the accuracy and reliability of that one witness.

        You may have heard of the term “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is a stricter standard, which applies in criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. You should, therefore, put it out of your minds.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - ELEMENTS OF

THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS

 

 

        To help you follow the evidence, I will now explain the elements of the plaintiffs’ claims. However, I must first explain some preliminary matters.

 

        Preliminary Matters

        The plaintiffs contend that their treatment at The Horizons Family Restaurant violated federal law, because it deprived them of the same right to contract for the services of the restaurant as is enjoyed by white citizens. As I explained during jury selection, I will describe the plaintiffs’ claims as “racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant.”

        The plaintiffs’ claims are based on a federal statute that mandates equal rights under the law, in pertinent part, as follows:

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens[.]

 

The “right to contract,” within the meaning of this statute, includes the right to “the enjoyment of benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” More specifically, it includes the right of all customers of a restaurant to receive more than just food. Thus, it includes the right to the same treatment in seating and services, the right to be free from hostile treatment based on race, and the right to be served in an atmosphere that a reasonable person would expect in the chosen place. The parties dispute whether or not the plaintiffs were deprived of the same right to contract for the services of The Horizons Family Restaurant as is enjoyed by white citizens.

        Under the law, employers, such as Mr. Kasotakis, doing business as The Horizons Family Restaurant, are liable for the wrongful acts of their employees within the scope of the employees’ employment. The parties do not dispute that, if the plaintiffs were subjected to any conduct by employees of The Horizons Family Restaurant that violated federal law, as alleged by the plaintiffs, those employees were acting within the scope of their employment, and that Mr. Kasotakis would, consequently, be liable for those employees’ conduct.

        You must give separate consideration to each plaintiff’s claim, including the award of damages, if any. Therefore, each plaintiff must prove his claim by the greater weight of the evidence. You must also give separate consideration to the defendant’s defense to each plaintiff’s claim.

        I will now explain the elements of the plaintiffs’ claims of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant.

 

        Elements Of The Plaintiffs’ Claims

        To win his claim, each plaintiff must prove the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the plaintiff is a member of a “protected class,” that is, the plaintiff is a member of a non-white racial group;

        Two, on or about June 23, 2001, the plaintiff sought the services of The Horizons Family Restaurant;

        Three, the plaintiff did not receive the full benefits and services that a reasonable person would expect in that restaurant; and

        Four, the plaintiff was intentionally deprived of the full benefits and services of the restaurant because of the plaintiff’s race.

 

        This is only a preliminary outline of the elements of each plaintiff’s claim. At the end of the trial, I will give you further final written instructions explaining this claim. Because the final instructions are more detailed, those instructions govern on the elements of each plaintiff’s claim.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - ORDER OF TRIAL

 

        The trial will proceed as follows:

        After these preliminary instructions, the plaintiffs’ attorneys may make opening statements. Next, the lawyer for the defendant may make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence, but simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence to be.

        After opening statements, the plaintiffs will present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyer for the defendant may cross-examine them. Following the plaintiffs’ case, the defendant may present evidence and call witnesses and the lawyers for the plaintiffs may cross-examine them.

        After the evidence is concluded, I will give you most of the final instructions. The lawyers will then make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then give you the remaining final instruction on deliberations, and you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

 

        Evidence is:

        1.     Testimony.

        2.     Exhibits I admit into evidence.

        3.     Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

        Evidence may be “direct” or “circumstantial.” The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct and circumstantial evidence. The weight to be given any evidence is for you to decide.

        A particular item of evidence is sometimes admitted only for a limited purpose, and not for any other purpose. I will tell you if that happens, and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used.

        The fact that an exhibit may be shown to you does not mean that you must rely on it more than you rely on other evidence.

        The following are not evidence:

        1.     Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers.

        2.     Objections and rulings on objections.

        3.     Testimony I tell you to disregard.

        4.     Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom.

        The weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Also, the weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined merely by the number or volume of documents or exhibits. The weight of evidence depends upon its quality, which means how convincing it is, and not necessarily upon its quantity. For example, you may choose to believe the testimony of one witness, if you find that witness to be convincing, even if a number of other witnesses contradict his or her testimony. The quality and weight of the evidence are for you to decide.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

 

        In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness says, only part of it, or none of it.

        In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witness’s intelligence, the opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the witness’s memory, any motives that witness may have for testifying a certain way, the manner of the witness while testifying, whether that witness said something different at an earlier time, the witness’s drug or alcohol use or addiction, if any, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe. In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes see or hear things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider, therefore, whether a contradiction results from an innocent misrecollection or sincere lapse of memory, or instead from an intentional falsehood or pretended lapse of memory.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - STIPULATED FACTS

 

        The plaintiffs and the defendant have agreed or “stipulated” to certain facts and have reduced these facts to a written agreement or stipulation. Any counsel may, throughout the trial, read to you all or a portion of the stipulated facts. You should treat these stipulated facts as having been proved.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - DEPOSITIONS

 

 

        Certain testimony from a deposition may be read into evidence. A deposition is testimony taken under oath before the trial and preserved in writing. Consider that testimony as if it had been given in court.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - INTERROGATORIES

 

        During this trial, you may hear the word “interrogatory.” An interrogatory is a written question asked by one party of another, who must answer it under oath in writing. Consider interrogatories and the answers to them as if the questions had been asked and answered here in court.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS

 

        The lawyers may make objections and motions during the trial that I must rule upon. If I sustain an objection to a question before it is answered, do not draw any inferences or conclusions from the question itself. Also, the lawyers have a duty to object to testimony or other evidence that they believe is not properly admissible. Do not hold it against a lawyer or the party the lawyer represents because the lawyer has made objections.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - BENCH CONFERENCES

 

        During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the lawyers out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a bench conference here while the jury is present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please be patient, because while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, to avoid confusion and error, and to save your valuable time. We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - NOTE-TAKING

 

        If you want to take notes during the trial, you may, but be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all the evidence. If you choose not to take notes, remember that it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence.

        Notes you take during the trial are not necessarily more reliable than your memory or another juror’s memory. Therefore, you should not be overly influenced by the notes.

         If you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. At the end of each day, please leave your notes on your chair. At the end of the trial, you may take your notes out of the notebook and keep them, or leave them, and we will destroy them. No one will read the notes, either during or after the trial.

        You will notice that we have an official court reporter making a record of the trial. However, we will not have typewritten transcripts of this record available for your use in reaching your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - CONDUCT OF JURORS

DURING TRIAL

 

 

        You will not be required to remain together while court is in recess. However, to insure fairness, you as jurors must obey the following rules:

        First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.

        Second, do not talk with anyone else about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors.

        Third, when you are outside the courtroom do not let anyone tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me. If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial, please report it to me.

        Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case—you should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important that you not only do justice in this case, but that you also give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of the case sees you talking to a person from the other side—even if it is simply to pass the time of day—an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. If any lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator or the like, it is because they are not supposed to talk or visit with you.

        Fifth, do not read any news stories or articles about the case, or about anyone involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. If you want, you can have your spouse or a friend clip out any stories and set them aside to give you after the trial is over. I can assure you, however, that by the time you have heard the evidence in this case you will know more about the matter than anyone will learn through the news media.

        Sixth, do not do any research—on the Internet, in libraries, in the newspapers, or in any other way—or make any investigation about this case on your own. You must decide this case based on the evidence presented in court and the law as I explain it to you in my instructions.

        Seventh, do not make up your mind during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have gone to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

        Eighth, if at anytime during the trial you have a problem that you would like to bring to my attention, or if you feel ill or need to go to the restroom, please send a note to the Court Security Officer, who will deliver it to me. I want you to be comfortable, so please do not hesitate to inform me of any problem.

        DATED this 18th day of February, 2004.

 

                                                     mwbjustsig.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION


        Members of the jury, the written instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and the oral instructions I gave you during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions.

        The instructions I am about to give you, as well as the preliminary instructions given to you at the beginning of the trial, are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. All instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed. This is true even though some of the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial are not repeated here.

        In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

        Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action, or remark that I have made during the course of this trial have I intended to give any opinion or suggestion as to what your verdict should be.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESSES

 

 

        In Preliminary Instruction No. 7, I instructed you generally on the credibility of witnesses. However, I must now give you some further instructions on how the credibility of witnesses can be “impeached.”

        Any witness may be discredited or “impeached” by contradictory evidence; by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness’s present testimony. If earlier statements of a witness were admitted into evidence, they were not admitted to prove that the contents of those statements were true. Instead, you may consider those earlier statements only to determine whether you think they are consistent or inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness, and, therefore, whether they affect the credibility of that witness.

        If you believe that a witness has been discredited or impeached, it is your exclusive right to give that witness’s testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN

SERVICES OF A PUBLIC RESTAURANT

 

 

 

        Each of the plaintiffs contends that his treatment at The Horizons Family Restaurant on or about June 23, 2001, violated federal law, because it deprived him of the same right to contract for the services of the restaurant as is enjoyed by white citizens. To win his claim of “racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant,” each plaintiff must prove the following elements by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the plaintiff is a member of a “protected class.”

The statute upon which each plaintiff bases his claim provides that all customers of a restaurant are entitled to the same treatment as “white citizens.” Therefore, to establish his claim, the plaintiff must be a member of a “protected class,” such as a non-white racial group. In this case, the parties do not dispute that the plaintiffs, all of whom are African Americans, are members of a “protected class” within the meaning of the statute.

 

        Two, on or about June 23, 2001, the plaintiff sought the services of The Horizons Family Restaurant.

The parties do not dispute that each of the plaintiffs was present at The Horizons Family Restaurant on the date in question.

 

        Three, the plaintiff did not receive the full benefits and services that a reasonable person would expect in that restaurant.

The “right to contract,” within the meaning of the statute upon which the plaintiffs base their claims, includes the right to “the enjoyment of benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” More specifically, it includes the right of all customers of a restaurant to receive more than just food. Thus, it includes the right to the same treatment in seating and services, the right to be free from hostile treatment based on race, and the right to be served in an atmosphere that a reasonable person would expect in the chosen place. For example, a plaintiff was deprived of the full benefits and services of the restaurant if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was required to sit in a certain section of the restaurant, while white customers were not.

 

        Four, the plaintiff was intentionally deprived of the full benefits and services of the restaurant because of the plaintiff’s race.

Each plaintiff must prove that he was subjected to intentional discrimination “because of race.” The plaintiff’s race need not have been the only reason that he was deprived of the full benefits and services of the restaurant. Rather, his race must have played a part or played a role in the defendant’s employees’ decision to deprive the plaintiff of the full benefits and services of the restaurant.

You may find that the wrongful treatment of the plaintiff was “because of race” if you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, in light of all of the circumstances, including what was said or done by those present, that a reasonable person would conclude that wrongful treatment was because of the plaintiff’s race. You may also find that wrongful treatment was “because of race” if you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason offered by the defendant for the treatment of the plaintiff is not the true reason, but is instead a pretext to hide discrimination because of the plaintiff’s race.

However, you cannot find that the wrongful treatment was “because of race” simply because you find that the conduct of the defendant’s employees was poor business practice. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that a reason for the plaintiff’s wrongful treatment was the plaintiff’s race.

 

        Unless a particular plaintiff proves all of these elements by the greater weight of the evidence, your verdict must be for the defendant on that plaintiff’s claim. However, if you find that a particular plaintiff has proved all of these elements by the greater weight of the evidence, then that plaintiff is entitled to damages in some amount on his claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - DAMAGES—IN GENERAL

 

 

        The fact that I am instructing you on the proper measure of damages should not be considered as an indication that I have any view as to which party is entitled to your verdict in this case. Instructions as to the measure of damages are given only for your guidance in the event that you should find that a plaintiff is entitled to damages in accord with the other instructions.

        If you find in favor of a particular plaintiff on his claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, then you must award that plaintiff such sum as you find by the greater weight of the evidence will fairly and justly compensate that plaintiff for any damages that you find were proximately caused to him by the defendant’s employees’ wrongful conduct. An act is a “proximate cause” of damage if the act was a substantial factor in producing the damage and the damage would not have happened except for the act. “Substantial” means that the act had such an effect in producing damage as to lead a reasonable person to regard it as a cause of the damage.

        In arriving at an amount of damages, you cannot establish a figure by taking down the estimate of each juror as to damages and agreeing in advance that the average of those estimates shall be your award of damages. Rather, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence.

        Remember, throughout your deliberations, you must not engage in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. Except where instructed otherwise, in your consideration of punitive damages in Final Jury Instruction No. 7, you must not award damages under these Instructions by way of punishment or through sympathy. Your judgment must not be exercised arbitrarily, or out of sympathy or prejudice, for or against any of the parties.

        You must award the full amount of damages, if any, that a particular plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence. However, the amount you assess for damages must not exceed the amount proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant as proved by the evidence.

        Attached to these Instructions is a Verdict Form, which you must fill out. In the “Damages” steps of the Verdict Form for each plaintiff, the types of damages claimed by each plaintiff are identified. You should not consider the fact that a certain type of damages is identified to be an indication that you must award a sum for that type of damages. You should only award those damages, if any, that a particular plaintiff has proved by the greater weight of the evidence. The amount, if any, that you award for any item of damages may be different for each plaintiff, based on the evidence relating to that particular plaintiff.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

 

        Each plaintiff seeks “compensatory damages” for the emotional distress and mental anguish that he suffered as the result of the defendant’s employees’ wrongful conduct. Damages for “emotional distress and mental anguish” are the amount of damages that will reasonably compensate a plaintiff for the emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life that were proximately caused by the wrongful conduct of the defendant’s employees. The amount, if any, that you assess for damages for emotional distress cannot be measured by an exact or mathematical standard, and a plaintiff is not required to introduce evidence of the monetary value of such damages. However, you must use your sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence to determine the amount of such damages. Damages for emotional distress must compensate a particular plaintiff for any emotional distress that he suffered from the time of the wrongful conduct until the time that you give your verdict. You may also award future emotional distress damages, but only if you find that a particular plaintiff has proved that his emotional distress proximately caused by the defendant’s employees’ wrongful conduct is reasonably certain to extend into the future.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - NOMINAL DAMAGES

 

        If you find in favor of a plaintiff on his claim, but you find that his damages proximately caused by the wrongful conduct at issue have no monetary value, then you must return a verdict on that claim for that plaintiff in the nominal amount of One Dollar ($1.00).


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - PUNITIVE DAMAGES

 

        In addition to the “compensatory” or “nominal” damages, described in Final Jury Instruction No. 5 and Final Jury Instruction No. 6, respectively, the law permits the jury, under certain circumstances, to award “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. Therefore, if you find that a plaintiff has proved his claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, then you must consider what, if any, punitive damages you should award. Whether or not to award punitive damages, and the amount of such punitive damages, are for you to decide.

        You may award punitive damages to a particular plaintiff only if you find that plaintiff has proved the following by the greater weight of the evidence:

        One, the defendant was callously and recklessly indifferent to the plaintiff’s right not to be discriminated against in services of a public restaurant because of his race.

The defendant was callously and recklessly indifferent if the plaintiff proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant knew that his employees’ conduct violated the law prohibiting racial discrimination in a public restaurant, but took no reasonable steps to prevent such conduct, or acted with reckless disregard of that law.

 

        Two, it is appropriate to punish the defendant or to deter the defendant and others from permitting like conduct by his employees in the future.

        In determining the amount of punitive damages, if any, to award, you should consider how offensive the defendant’s employees’ conduct was; whether the amount of punitive damages bears a reasonable relationship to the actual damages awarded on a particular plaintiff’s claim; what sum is sufficient to deter other similar persons from similar wrongful conduct in the future; any circumstances of mitigation; and what amount is needed, considering the defendant’s financial condition, to punish the defendant for his employees’ wrongful conduct toward a particular plaintiff and to prevent a repetition of that wrongful conduct in the future, although the wealth of the defendant cannot justify an award that is not reasonably related to the offensiveness of the defendant’s employees’ conduct or out of reasonable proportion to the actual damages awarded to a particular plaintiff. Again, whether or not to award punitive damages, and the amount of such punitive damages, are for you to decide.

        You may assess punitive damages in favor of one, some, or all of the plaintiffs, in the same or different amounts, or you may refuse to impose any punitive damages at all, based upon the evidence presented.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - DELIBERATIONS

 

        In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules that you must follow.

        First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in court.

        Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should, but do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach 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.

        Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the Court Security Officer, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell anyone—including me—how your votes stand numerically.

        Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I have given to you in my instructions. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be—that is entirely for you to decide.

        Finally, I am giving you the Verdict Form. A Verdict Form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. Your verdict must be unanimous. You will take the Verdict Form to the jury room. When you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson must complete one copy of the Verdict Form and all of you must sign that copy to record your individual agreement with the verdict and to show that it is unanimous. The foreperson must bring the signed Verdict Form to the courtroom when it is time to announce your verdict. When you have reached a verdict, the foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

        DATED this 19th day of February, 2004.

 

                                                     mwbjustsig1.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION



KENNETH D. SHERMAN, DONALD McNEAL, ARMANDO BARKER, and TONYELL McNEAL,

 

Plaintiffs,

No. C 02-4047-MWB

vs.


VERDICT FORM


NICK KASOTAKIS, Individually and d/b/a THE HORIZONS FAMILY RESTAURANT,

Defendant.

____________________

 

        On the claims of the plaintiffs, we, the Jury, find as follows:

KENNETH SHERMAN

VERDICT

Step 1:

Liability

On the claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, in whose favor do you find? (If you found in favor of the defendant, do not answer any more questions pertaining to Mr. Sherman. Instead, go on to consider the claim of the next plaintiff. However, if you found in favor of Mr. Sherman, please continue with the remaining steps in the Verdict Form pertaining to Mr. Sherman.)


___ Mr. Sherman


___ Mr. Kasotakis

Step 2:

Compensa-tory or Nominal Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Sherman, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, or nominal damages do you award? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 5 and Final Jury Instruction No. 6.)

Past emotional distress

$ _______________

Future emotional distress

$ _______________

OR

Nominal damages

$ _______________

Step 3:

Punitive Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Sherman, what amount, if any, do you award as punitive damages for racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 7.)


$ _______________

DONALD McNEAL

VERDICT

Step 1:

Liability

On the claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, in whose favor do you find? (If you found in favor of the defendant, do not answer any more questions pertaining to Mr. McNeal. Instead, go on to consider the claim of the next plaintiff. However, if you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, please continue with the remaining steps in the Verdict Form pertaining to Mr. McNeal.)


___ Mr. McNeal


___ Mr. Kasotakis

Step 2:

Compensa-tory or Nominal Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, or nominal damages do you award? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 5 and Final Jury Instruction No. 6.)

Past emotional distress

$ _______________

Future emotional distress

$ _______________

OR

Nominal damages

$ _______________

Step 3:

Punitive Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, what amount, if any, do you award as punitive damages for racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 7.)


$ _______________

ARMANDO BARKER

VERDICT

Step 1:

Liability

On the claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, in whose favor do you find? (If you found in favor of the defendant, do not answer any more questions pertaining to Mr. Barker. Instead, go on to consider the claim of the next plaintiff. However, if you found in favor of Mr. Barker, please continue with the remaining steps in the Verdict Form pertaining to Mr. Barker.)


___ Mr. Barker


___ Mr. Kasotakis

Step 2:

Compensa-tory or Nominal Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Barker, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, or nominal damages do you award? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 5 and Final Jury Instruction No. 6.)

Past emotional distress

$ _______________

Future emotional distress

$ _______________

OR

Nominal damages

$ _______________

Step 3:

Punitive Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. Barker, what amount, if any, do you award as punitive damages for racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 7.)


$ _______________

TONYELL McNEAL

VERDICT

Step 1:

Liability

On the claim of racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, in whose favor do you find? (If you found in favor of the defendant, do not answer any more questions pertaining to Mr. McNeal. However, if you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, please continue with the remaining steps in the Verdict Form pertaining to Mr. McNeal.)


___ Mr. McNeal


___ Mr. Kasotakis

Step 2:

Compensa-tory or Nominal Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, what amount of compensatory damages, if any, or nominal damages do you award? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 5 and Final Jury Instruction No. 6.)

Past emotional distress

$ _______________

Future emotional distress

$ _______________

OR

Step 3:

Punitive Damages

If you found in favor of Mr. McNeal, what amount, if any, do you award as punitive damages for racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant? (Please see Final Jury Instruction No. 7.)


$ _______________



Date: ________________     Time: ________________



_______________________________

Foreperson

_______________________________

Juror


________________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror