t:: ::::s 0 (.) ro ·c -g (.) 'iii 'i: l) -0 U) tl ·-c ·;:::

u; U)

Ci c:::

Q) Cii - .<:: co t:::

0 - z C/) Q)

"C .s 0 Q) u.. -t:

::>

FILED

JUL 0 1 2014 RICHARD W. WIEKING

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8 WANDA JOHNSON, et al.,

9 Plaintiffs,

10 v.

11 BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, et al.,

12

13 Defendants.

_____________________________ I

14 AND RELATED ACTIONS.

15

16

17

_____________________________ I

No. C-09-0901 EMC

CONSOLIDATED CASES

C-09-4014 EMC (Grant) C-09-4835 EMC (Bryson, et al.) C-1 0-0005 EMC (Caldwell)

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM RE OSCAR GRANT, JR.

18 We, the jury, answer the questions submitted to us as follows .

19 OSCAR GRANT, JR.

20 Question 1:

21 Did OSCAR GRANT, JR. prove by a preponderance of the evi~ence that his relationship

22 with Oscar Grant, III was a familial relationship such as one which involved deep attachments and

23 commitments to one another which resulted in the sharing of a special community of thoughts,

24 experiences and beliefs as well as the distinctively personal aspects of each others lives?

25

26 ---- Yes

27 Regardless of your answer, please answer Question Number 2.

28 Ill

Case3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document568 Filed07/01/14 Page1 of 3

t:: :::::s 0

(..) .!!! E - g

(.) "iii 'i: (.) -0 .~ tl c ·c

iii

U) i:5 c

Q) Cii - .J::.

C'tS t 0 -z C/) Q)

"C £ 0 Q) ~ -·-c:::

:::>

1 Question 2:

2 Did OSCAR GRANT, JR. prove by a preponderance of the evidence that JOHANNES

3 MEHSERLE acted against Oscar Grant, III with a purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law

4 enforcement objective?

5

6 ----Yes

7 If you answered "yes" to both Questions Number 1 and Number 2, please answer Question

8 Number 3. If you answered "no" to either Question Number 1 or Number 2, STOP, and a verdict

9 will be entered in favor of Defendant JOHANNES MEHSERLE.

10

11 Question 3:

12 Did JOHANNES MEHSERLE cause injury or death to Oscar Grant, III?

13

14 --- - Yes No ----

15 If you answered "yes" to Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3, please answer Question Numbers 4

16 and 5. If you answered "no" to either Question Number 1, 2, or 3, STOP, and a verdict will be

17 entered in favor of Defendant JOHANNES MEHSERLE.

18 Ifyou answered "yes" to Question Numbers 1, 2, and 3, a verdict will be entered in favor of

19 Plaintiff OSCAR GRANT, JR.

20

21 Question 4:

22 If you find that OSCAR GRANT, JR. suffered damages (other than punitive damages) enter

23 that amount here. If, on the other hand, you find that OSCAR GRANT, JR.'s rights were violated,

24 but that he did not suffer any actual damages, you must enter nominal damages in an amount not to

25 exceed $1.00.

26

27 $ -------

28

2

Case3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document568 Filed07/01/14 Page2 of 3

•

t:: ::::s 0 (J !'0 ·c: -g (.) Iii ·;:: () - 0 U) t5 c ·;::

iii

U) iS c:

Q) Gi -.s:: cu t 0 -z en Q)

"C £ 0 Q) u.. -t:

:::>

1 Question 5:

2 Did OSCAR GRANT, JR. prove by a preponderance of the evidence that JOHANNES

3 MEHSERLE's conduct was malicious, oppressive, or in reckless disregard of OSCAR GRANT,

4 JR. ' s rights?

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Yes No ---- - ---

If you answered "yes," you now have the opportunity to award punitive damages. An award

of punitive damages serves to punish an individual defendant and act as a deterrent for such future

conduct, rather than pay someone back for what they lost. The jury may award punitive damages

only if it concludes that JOHANNES MEHSERLE' s conduct was either motivated by malicious,

oppressive, or in reckless disregard of indifference to OSCAR GRANT, JR.'s rights.

What, if any, punitive damages do you award to OSCAR GRANT, JR.?

$ ___ __ _

Please have the foreperson sign and date this form. Then return the form to the Courtroom

Deputy.

24 Dated: 9 -/ -/j' ---~----

~~ 25

26

27

28

3

JUR YFOREPERSON

Case3:09-cv-00901-EMC Document568 Filed07/01/14 Page3 of 3