fifty-six v avela (bob marley rop) (jury instruc.)

8/7/2019 Fifty-Six v Avela (Bob Marley ROP) (Jury Instruc.)

1/30

(- - 1 ku- ' .--s) 'iL -.. v . ,C F F 14: U :9 rq'$ S; 'i' -. ' t ) f f O U RT. . ' .. y . 'rD... ' Ft;(; ; .; . N,r S/p.TJ7,! .

234 IJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT5 DISTRICT OF NEV A DA6 ** *)7 FIFTY-SIX HOPE ROAD MUSIC, LTD. a) 2:08-CV-00105-PMP-GWFBahamian corporation; and ZlOY )8 FOOTSWEAR, LLC, a Florida llmited )lability company, )9 ) JURY W STRUCTIONS)l t) Plaintiffs, ))11 vs. ))12 A.V.E.L A. INC. a Nevada corporation; X)oxs x 6vIi! iRculv ,lx csa )13 Nevada cqrporation; JEM SPORTSWEAR, )a Califorma corporation; CENTIG L )l 4 MILLS, INC. (Freeze), a NewYork )corpqration; and LEO VALENCIA, an )lb indlvldual, ))16 )Defendants. )1718 Members of the jury, now that you have heard a1l the evidence, it is my19 duty to instruct you on the 1aw which applies to this case.20 It is your duty to t5nd the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those2 1 facts you m ust apply the 1aw as I give it to you. You must follow the 1aw as I give it22 to you in these lnstm ctions whether you agree w ith it or not. And you must not be23 intluenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices or sympathy. That24 m eans that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you and2 5 according to the 1aw as given to you in these lnstructions. You will recall that you2 6 took an oath promising to do so at the begirming of the case.

Case 2:08-cv-00105-PMP-GWF Document 294 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 30


2/30

1 ln following my lnstructions, you must follow a1l of them and not single2 out some and ignore others; they are al1 equally important. And you must not read3 into these lnstructions or into anything l may have said or done any suggestion as to4 what verdict you should return-that is a matter entirely for you to decide.5 'Ihe evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of6 (1) the sworn testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross-examination,7 regardless of who called the witness; (2) any testimony from depositions which have8 been read or videotaped into evidence; (3) the exhibits which have been received9 into evidence; and (4) any facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.10 There are two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct11 evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness.12 Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from13 which you could tind that another fact exists, even though it has not been proved14 directly. You are entitled to consider both kinds of evidence. The law permits you15 to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to16 any evidence.1718192 02 12 22 32 42 52 6

2



3/30

1 ln reaching your verdict you may consider only the evidence in this case.2 Certain things are not evidence and you m ay not consider them in deciding what the3 facts are. 1 will list them for you:4 1 . Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers5 are not witnesses. W hat they say in their opening statements, closing arguments and6 at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. lf7 the facts as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers have stated the8 facts, your m em or.y of the facts controls.9 2. Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have10 a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the11 rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the objection or by the court's12 ruling on it.13 3. Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been14 instnzcted to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. ln addition if15 testimony or exhibits have been received only for a limited purpose, you must16 follow the limiting instructions I have given.17 4. Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session18 is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at thel 9 trial.20212 22 32 42 52 6

3



4/30

l ln deciding what the facts are, you must consider al1 the evidence. ln2 doing this, you must decide which testimony to believe and which testimony not to3 believe. You may believe everything a witness says or part of, or none of it. ln4 making that decision, you may take into account a number of factors including the5 following'6 1. W as the witness able to see, or hear, or know those things about w hich7 that witness testified?E) 2. How well was the w itness able to recall and describe those things?9 3. W hat was the witness's manner while testifying?l t) 4. D id the w itness have an interest in the outcom e of this case or any biasl l or prejudice concerning any party or any matter involved in the case?12 5. How reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of all13 the evidence in the case?l 4 6. W as the witness's testimony contradicted by what that witness has saidl 5 or done at another time, or by the testimony of other witnesses, or by other16 evidence?17 7. Any other factors that bear on believability.18 In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that peoplel 9 sometimes forget things. You need to consider therefore whether a contradiction is2 0 an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on2 1 whether it has to do with an important fact or with only a small detail.2 22 32 42 52 6

4



5/30

1 A1l parties are equal before the law and a corporation or a limited liability2 company is entitled to the same fair and conscientious consideration by you as any3 party.4 The parties in this case are:5 Plaintiffs:6 1 . Fiftp six Hope Road M usic, Ltd., and7 2. Zion Rootswear, LLC.8 Defendants:9 l . A .V.E.L.A., Inc.,10 2. X One X M ovie Archive, lnc.,l 1 3. Leo V alencia,12 4. JEM Sportswear, andl 3 5. Central M ills, lnc. (Freeze).l 4l 51617181 92 02 12 22 32 42526

5



6/30

1 W hen a party has the burden of proof on any claim or defense by a2 preponderance of the evidence, it means you m ust be persuaded by the evidence that3 the claim is more probably true than not true.4 You should base your decision on all of the evidence, regardless of which5 party presented it.67891011l 21314151617181 92 02 l2 22 32 42 52 6

6



7/30

1234567891011121314l 51 61718l 92 02 12 22 32 42 52 6

I will now instruct you on Plaintiffs' claims which are before you fordecision in this case.

There are two claim s for relief alleged by Plaintiffs which are before youfor consideration in this trial. They are Plaintiffs' claims for ( 1) unfair competitionbased on Defendants' use of Bob M arley's identity or persona, and (2) intentionalinterference with Plaintiffs' prospective economic business relationships.

l will now explain and instruct you m ore fully on the 1aw pertaining toh of these two claims.ac

7



8/30

1 A person who is famous or othenvise enjoys a broad level of recognition2 m ay acquire protectable rights in his identity or persona, which includes hisa likeness, voice, nam e, or other uniquely distinguishing characteristic. A celebrity's4 identity or persona is a protectable right if that person is publicly recognized or hass an economic interest in his identity. An action for unfair competition m ay be6 brought to enforce the right to exclude others from using a celebrity's identity or7 persona if such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive asE) to the affiliation, connection, or association between the celebrity or the owner of9 the celebrity's identity or persona and the defendant, or to cause confusion as to the10 plaintiff's participation in the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the defendant's11 goods or com m ercial activities.1213l 4l 5l 61718l 92 02 12 22 32 42 52 6

8



9/30

1 The heirs or estate of a deceased celebrity may inherit, or another person or2 entity may acquire, the rights owned by the deceased person, including the right tog commercially exploit the celebrity's persona or identity and the right to exclude4 others from using the deceased celebrity's persona or identity in a manner whichs unfairly competes.67891011121314151 617l 8192 02 l2 22 32 42 52 6

9



10/30

1 The owner of a celebrity's persona or identity may enter into an agreement2 that permits another person to use the celebrity's identity or persona. This type of3 agreement is called a license, and the person pennitted to use the celebrity's identity4 or persona is called a licensee.5 The owner and/or licensee may enforce the right to exclude others in an6 action for unfair competition.7891011l 2131415l 617l 81 92 02 l2 2 '2 32 42526

10



11/30

z IJNFM R COM PETITION2a For their first claim for relief in this case, Plaintiffs, Fifty-six Hope Road4 M usic, Ltd. and Zion Rootswear, LLC, assert a claim against Defendants,5 A .V.E.L.A., Inc., X One X M ovie Archive, Inc., Jem Sportswear, Central M ills, lnc.6 (Freeze), and Leo Valencia, for unfair competition. On Plaintiffs' claim for unfair7 competition, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving each of the following elem ents by8 a preponderance of the evidence:9 1 . That Bob M arley's identity or persona is a valid, protectable right'lo 2. That Plaintiffs own the rights to Bob M arley's identity or persona' and11 3. That Defendants used Bob M arley's identity or persona without12 Plaintiffs' consent in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, or to1a cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or14 association between Plaintiffs and D efendants, or is likely to cause1s confusion as to Plaintiffs' participation in the origin, sponsorship, orz 6 approval of Defendants' goods or commercial activities.z7 A defendant who actively partakes or participates in, assists, lends aid to,z a or ratifies and adopts acts constituting unfair competition is equally liable with the19 defendant that initiated or perfonned such acts in the first place. lf you tind a20 Defendant actively partook or participated in, assisted, lent aid to, ratified or21 adopted acts constituting unfair competition, you must find that Defendant equally22 liable with the Defendant that initiated or perfonned acts constituting unfair23 competition in the first place.24 A celebrity's persona is used without consent if it is used without oral or2 5 written permission of the owner of those rights.2 6 If you find that Plaintiffs have proven each of the elem ents on which

l l



12/30

1 Plaintiffs have the burden of proof, your verdict should be for Plaintiffs. If, on the2 other hand, Plaintiffs have failed to prove any of these elem ents, your verdict should3 be for Defendants.456789101 1l 213l 4151617181920212223242526

12



13/30

1 To establish the first elem ent of Plaintiffs' unfair competition claim,2 Plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bob M arley's identity3 or persona is a valid, protectable right. A person's identity or persona may be a4 valid, protectable right if that person is publicly recognized or has an econom ic5 interest in his identity.6 Only if you detennine Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the7 evidence that Bob M arley's identity or persona is a valid protectable right should8 you consider whether Plaintiffs own it or whether Defendants' actions infringed it.9

10z 1 'l 2l 31 4l 5l 6l 718l 92 02 l2 22 32 42 52 6

l 3



14/30

1 To establish the second elem ent of Plaintiffs' unfair competition claim,2 Plaintiffs must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs own thea rights to Bob M arley's identity or persona. If you find the persona and identity of4 Bob M arley to be a valid right, you m ust consider whether Plaintiffs have succeededs to or acquired rights to Bob M arley's persona or identity. Only if you determine6 Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiffs have succeeded7 to or acquired rights to Bob M arley's identity or persona should you consider8 whether Defendants' actions infringed those rights.9101112131415161718l 92 02 l2 22 32 42 526

14



15/30

z W ith respect to the third elem ent of Plaintiffs' unfair competition claim,2 you must consider whether Defendants' use of images of Bob M arley is likely toa cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the aftiliation, connection,4 or association between Plaintiffs and Defendants, or to cause confusion as to5 Plaintiffs' participation in the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants' goods6 or commercial activities.7 I will suggest some factors you should consider in deciding this. The8 presence or absence of any particular factor that l suggest should not necessarily9 resolve whether there was a likelihood of confusion, because you must consider all10 relevant evidence in determining this. As you consider the likelihood of conhzsion11 you should examine the following:12 l . The level of recognition that Bob M arley has am ong the segm ent of13 society for whom Defendants' products are intended.14 2. Defendants' Use of Bob M arley's Persona or ldentity.15 3. Sim ilarity of the im ages used by Defendants to Bob M arley.16 4. Actual confusion. lf Defendants' use of Bob M arley's identity or17 persona has 1ed to instances of actual confusion, this strongly suggests a likelihood18 of confusion. However, actual confusion is not required for a finding of likelihoodz 9 of confusion. Even if actual conftzsion did not occur, Defendants' use of the identity2: or persona of Bob M arley still may be likely to cause confusion. As you consider2 1 whether Bob M arley's identity or persona used by Defendants creates for consumers22 a likelihood of confusion as to Plaintiffs' origin, approval, or sponsorship of2 E$ Defendants' products, you should weigh any instances of actual confusion against2 4 the opportunities for such confusion. If the instances of actual confusion have been2 5 relatively frequent, you m ay find that there has been substantial actual confusion. lf,2 6 by contrast, there is a very large volum e of sales, but only a few isolated instances of

l 5



16/30

1 actual confusion, you m ay tind that there has not been substantial actual confusion.2 You may consider surveys assessing consumer confusion as circumstantial evidence3 of actual confusion.4 5. Defendants' intent. ltnow ing use by Defendants of Plaintiffs' rights in5 Bob M arley's identity or persona to falsely connect, affiliate, or associate6 Defendants with Plaintiffs or suggest that their goods originated with or are7 approved or sponsored by Plaintiffs may strongly show an intent to derive benetit8 from the reputation of Plaintiffs, suggesting an intent to cause a likelihood of9 confusion. On the other hand, even in the absence of proof that Defendants acted10 knowingly, the use of Plaintiffs' rights in Bob M arley's identity or persona to11 identify similar goods may indicate a likelihood of confusion.12 6. M arketing/advertising channels. If Plaintiffs' and Defendants' goodsz3 are likely to be sold in the sam e or similar stores or outlets, or advertised in similarz 4 m edia, this may increase the likelihood of confusion.z 5 7. Consumers' degree of care. The more sophisticated the potentiall 6 buyers of the goods or the more costly the goods, the more careful and1'7 discrim inating the reasonably prudent purchaser exercising ordinary caution may be.18 The less sophisticated the buyer or the less expensive the goods, the less careful and19 discrim inating the reasonably prudent purchaser may be.2c 8. Product line expansion. W hen the parties' products differ, you may21 consider how likely Plaintiffs are to begin selling the products for which D efendants22 are using Bob M arley's identity or persona. If there is a strong possibility of one23 party expanding into the other party's market, there is a greater likelihood of24 confusion.2 5 9. Protection of rights. Plaintiffs' efforts at protecting their asserted rights2 6 also m ay bear on the strength of association between Plaintiffs and Bob M arley's

16



17/30

z identity or persona.2 10. Any other factors that bear on the likelihood of confusion.a Not a11 of these factors will be relevant in every dispute, and there is no4 need for each factor to suppol't either party's position on the likelihood of confusion5 issue. Although several factors may be simultaneously present, some factors may be6 more important than others.7891011121314l 5l 617l 8l 92 O2 l2 22 32 42 52 6

l 7



18/30

z Plaintiffs do not need to establish that consumers know or are fam iliar with2 Plaintiffs Fifty-six Hope Road M usic Ltd. or Zion Rootswear, LLC. Consum ers3 need only believe that Defendants' use of Bob M arley's identity or persona is likely4 to cause confusion as to the aftiliation, connection, or association between the5 owners of the rights to Bob M arley's identity or persona and Defendants, or as to the6 participation in the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants' goods or7 commercial activities by the owners of the rights to Bob M arley's identity ora persona, regardless of whether they are able to identify the owner by a name.910l l121314151617181920212223242526

18



19/30

1 The owner of a protectable right in a celebrity's identity or persona cannot2 exclude others from making a fair use of the celebrity's identity or persona. A3 defendant m akes fair use of a celebrity's identity or persona when the defendant4 uses it to accurately describe its own products in a m anner that is not likely to cause5 confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or6 association between Plaintiffs and Defendants, or is not likely to cause confusion as-/ to Plaintiffs' participation in the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants'8 goods or commercial activities.9 Defendants contend they did not unfairly compete with Plaintiffs' rights inzo the identity or persona of Bob M arley because Defendants fairly used Bob M arley'szl likeness to identify Bob M arley, even if Defendants' ultimate goal was to describez2 their own products. To establish fair use, Defendants have the btzrden of proving byla a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants'14 1. Use the likeness of Bob M arley to identify Bob M arley, who was not15 readily identifiable without using his likeness,16 2. Use only so much of Bob M arley's likeness as necessary to identifyz7 Bob M arley, andz8 3. Did not do anything, in conjunction with using Bob Marley's likeness,19 that would be likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the20 affiliation, connection, or association between Plaintiffs and Defendants, or be likely21 to cause confusion as to Plaintiffs' participation in the origin, sponsorship, or22 approval of Defendants' goods or commercial activities.2 3242526

19



20/30

1 If you find that Defendants unfairly competed with Plaintiffs' rights to Bob2 M arley's identity or persona, you also must determ ine whether each Defendant dida so willfully. Plaintiffs have the burden of proving willfulness by a preponderance of4 the evidence. W illf'ul unfair competition carries a connotation of a deliberate intent5 to deceive. You therefore must determine whether each Defendant used Bob6 M arley's persona or identity intentionally, knowing it was likely to cause confusion,7 or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the aftiliation, connection, or association8 between Plaintiffs and D efendants, or to cause confusion as to Plaintiffs'9 participation in the origin, sponsorship, or approval of Defendants' goods orz a commercial activities with Plaintiffs.lz A Defendant's knowledge may be proven by showing that Defendant was12 willftzlly blind. A Defendant is willfully blind if it suspects wrongdoing andla deliberately fails to investigate or inquire f'urther. W illful blindness may be inferred14 from the facts and circumstances of the case.151 6l 7181 92 02 12 22 32 42 52 6

2 O



21/30

1 INTENTIONAL G TERFEQENCE2 m TH PROSPECTW E BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS34 Plaintiffs' second claim for relief is that Defendants intentionally5 interfered with a prospective business relationship between Plaintiffs and third6 parties. For this claim, Plaintiffs have the burden of proving each of the following7 elements by a preponderance of the evidence:8 1. Plaintiffs had an expectancy of a business relationship with a third party9 w ith the probability of future economic benetit for Plaintiffs;lo 2. Defendants knew of Plaintiffs' expectancy at the time Defendants11 committed the acts complained of;12 3. Defendants intended to harm Plaintiffs by preventing the prospective13 business relationship;14 4. Defendants had no privilege orjustification for preventing the15 prospective business relationship; and16 5. Plaintiffs suffered dam age as a result.1718l 92 02 12 22 32 42 52 6

2 l



22/30

1 W ith respect to the first element of Plaintiffs' intentional interference2 claim, the expectancy of a business relationship need not be evidenced by a contract.(3 It is sufficient if you find from the evidence that there were either prior dealings or a4 prior course of conduct between Plaintiffs and a third party from which there would5 be a reasonable expectation of future economic advantage or benefit. Plaintiffs must6 show this expected advantage or benetit with som e degree of specificity, but it need7 not be shown with certainty because the future necessarily is uncertain. The law8 requires more than hope or optimism . W hat is required is a reasonable likelihood or9 probability.1011121314151 61718192 02 l2 22 32 42 52 6

2 2



23/30

1 W ith respect to the second elem ent of Plaintiffs' intentional interference2 claim , you m ust find that Defendants knew of the existence of this expectancy of aa business relationship. To have knowledge means that Defendants had information4 concerning the expectancy of the business relationship, which was discovered by5 D efendants or was brought to Defendants' attention by others.6789l 0l l121314151617181920212223242526

23



24/30

1 W ith respect to the third elem ent of Plaintiffs' intentional interference2 claim, conduct is intentional if it is done deliberately, with the purpose of interferinga w ith Plaintiffs' prospective business relationship. lf you 5nd that Defendants'4 conduct was not intentional, then you must tind for Defendants on Plaintiffs'5 intentional interference with prospective business relationship claim.6 lntent ordinarily may not be proved directly because there is no way of7 scrutinizing the operations of the human m ind. You may infer a person's intent8 from conduct substantially certain to interfere with Plaintiffs' business expectation,9 but you are not required to infer it and should consider all of the circumstances.10 You m ay consider any statement made or act done or om itted by a party whosez z intent is an issue, and al1 of the facts and circumstances that indicate the party's state12 of mind. Furthermore, in detennining Defendants' intent, the law assumes that1a every person intends the natural consequences of one's knowingly done acts.14 An act or omission is done knowingly if done purposefully and15 voluntarily, and not because of mistake, inadvertence, or other innocent reason.161718192 02 l2 22 32 42 52 6

2 4



25/30

1 W ith respect to the fourth elem ent of Plaintiffs' intentional interference2 claim, you must determine whether Defendants' conduct was justified or privileged.a W here the alleged interferer is a financially interested party and such interest4 motivates its conduct, its conduct may be justified and privileged. Where there is a5 direct tinancial interest, the essential question in determining whether interference is6 justified is whether the interferer's conduct is motivated by a desire to protect its

econom ic interest, or whether it is motivated by spite, malice, or some other8 improper objective.910l 112

141.

l 7181 92 02 1

2 32 42 52 6

2 5



26/30

1 W ith respect to the tifth elem ent of Plaintiffs' intentional interference2 claim , you must determine whether D efendants were responsible for preventing3 Plaintiffs from entering into a prospective business relationship. ln other words, you4 must decide whether, except for Defendants' interference, Plaintiffs were reasonably5 certain to have entered into the business relationship or fulfilled the expectancy.6 Defendants' conduct will be deemed to be responsible for Plaintiffs'7 failure to enter into the relationship if it was a substantial factor in causing the third() party not to enter the relationship or to fulfill the expectancy w ith Plaintiffs.91011l 2l 3141516l 7181 92 ()2 12 22 32 42 52 6

2 6



27/30

1 You also must consider whether Defendants' conduct was the proximate2 cause of damage to Plaintiffs. If you tind that Defendants' conduct was not the3 proximate cause of dam age to Plaintiffs, your verdict will be for Defendants. ln this4 regard, Defendants' conduct will be deemed to be the proximate cause of Plaintiffs'5 loss or damage if you find that it was a substantial factor in causing that loss or6 dam age. lt need not be the only cause. Conduct is a substantial factor in causing the7 loss or damage if it had such an effect in producing the loss that reasonable people8 w ould regard it as a cause of the loss or dam age. ln resolving this issue, you m ay9 consider the number of other contributing factors, whether Defendants' conduct1() created a condition or chain of events that was continuous and active up to the timezl of the damage to Plaintiffs, and the lapse of time between Defendants' conduct and12 damageto Plaintiffs.1314151617181920212223242526

27



28/30

1 D GES23 If you find for Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' intentional interference with4 prospective business relationships claim , you must determine Plaintiffs' dam ages.5 Damages mean the amount of money which will reasonably and fairly6 compensate Plaintiffs for any injury you find was caused by the wrongful conduct ofJ Defendants. ln considering Plaintiffs' dam ages, if any, on this claim, you may8 consider the reasonable value of the expectancy of the business relationship lost to9 the present time, as well as the reasonable value of the expectancy of the businesslo relationship which with reasonable probability will be lost in the future. Plaintiffszl have the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence.z2 The fact that l instruct you on dam ages should not be taken by you as13 indicating one way or the other whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any14 damages. That is entirely for you to decide.

15 You may award compensatory damages only for injuries that Plaintiffsl 6 prove were caused by Defendants' allegedly wrongful conduct. The damages that17 you award must be fair com pensation, no more and no less. Com pensatory damages18 are not allowed as a punishment and must not be imposed or increased to penalize19 Defendants.2 a ln detennining the amount of any com pensatoly dam ages that you decide2 1 to award, you should be guided by dispassionate comm on sense. You m ust use22 sound discretion in fixing an award of compensatoly dam ages, drawing reasonable2 3 inferences from the facts and evidence. You may not award com pensatory damages2 4 based on sympathy, speculation, or guesswork. On the other hand, the 1aw does not2 5 require that Plaintiffs prove the amount of their losses with m athem atical precision,26 but only with as m uch definiteness and accuracy as circum stances perm it.

2 8



29/30

z Plaintiffs have a duty to use reasonable efforts to mitigate dam ages. To2 m itigate dam ages m eans to avoid or reduce dam ages. To establish that Plaintiffsa failed to mitigate dam ages, Defendants have the burden of proving the following by4 a preponderance of the evidence:5 1. That Plaintiffs failed to use reasonable efforts to mitigate their6 dam ages; and7 2. The am ount by which damages would have been m itigated.89101112131415l 617l 8l 92 O2 12 22 32 42 52 6

2 9



30/30

1 When you retire, you should elect one member of the jury as your2 foreperson. That person w ill preside over the deliberations and speak for you herea in court.4 You will then discuss the case with your fellowjurors to reach agreement5 if you can do so. Your verdict must be unanimous.6 Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only7 after you have considered a1l the evidence, discussed it fully with the otherjurors,8 and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your9 opinion if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not com e to a10 decision simply because otherjurors think it is right.11 It is im polant that you attempt to reach a unanimous verdict but, of12 course, only if each of you can do so after having m ade your own conscientiousz: decision. Do not change an honest belief about the weight and effect of the14 evidence simply to reach a verdict.ls lf it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with the16 Court, you m ay send a note through the M arshal, signed by your foreperson or byz7 one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should attempt to18 communicate with me by any means other than a signed writing, and 1 will notz 9 communicate with any member of the jury on any subject touching the merits of the2 a case other than in writing, or orally here in open Court.2 1 You will note from the oath about to be taken by the M arshal that he too,aa as w ell as a1l other persons are forbidden to com m unicate in any w ay or manner w ith2 (3 any member of the ju.ry on any subject touching the merits of the case.2 4 After you have reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your2 5 foreperson will sign and date the verdict form and advise the M arshal outside the


fifty-six v avela (bob marley rop) (jury instruc.)

Documents