United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
COURT'S JURY INSTRUCTIONS
S. Zilly, United States District Judge.
of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is
my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.
These instructions will be in three parts: first, the
instructions on general rules that define and control the
jury's duties; second, the instructions that state the
rules of law you must apply, i.e., what the
plaintiff must prove to make the case; and third, some rules
for your deliberations.
your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the
case. To those facts you must apply the law as I give it to
you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you
agree with it or not. And you must not be influenced by any
personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices or sympathy.
That means that you must decide the case solely on the
evidence before you and according to the law. You will recall
that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of
following my instructions, you must follow all of them and
not single out some and ignore others; they are all equally
important. And you must not read into these instructions or
anything I might have said or done any suggestion as to what
verdict you should return. That is a matter entirely for you
party has the burden of proof on any claim by a preponderance
of the evidence, it means you must be persuaded by the
evidence that the claim is more probably true than not true.
In determining whether any fact in issue has been proved by a
preponderance of the evidence, you should base your decision
on all of the evidence, regardless of which party presented
evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are
consists of (1) the sworn testimony of witnesses, both on
direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the
witness; (2) the exhibits which have been received into
evidence; and (3) any facts to which all the lawyers have
agreed or stipulated.
have also heard testimony in the form of depositions. This
testimony is also evidence from which you are to decide the
facts. You should draw no inference from whether these
individuals were or were not physically present in court
trial, the parties stipulated to certain facts. You should
consider those facts in addition to other facts which were
proved to you at trial.
is Not Evidence
reaching your verdict you may consider only the testimony and
exhibits received into evidence. Certain things are not
evidence and you may not consider them in deciding what the
facts are. I will list them for you:
Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The
lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening
statements, closing arguments and at other times is intended
to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence.
If the facts as you remember them differ from the way the
lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.
Objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty
to their clients to object when they believe a question is
improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be
influenced by the objection or by the court's ruling on
Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you
have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must
not be considered. In addition, if testimony or exhibits have
been received only for a limited purpose, you must follow the
limiting instructions I have given.
Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in
session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on
the evidence received at the trial.
and Circumstantial Evidence
may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct
proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what
the witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could
find another fact. You should consider both kinds of
evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to
be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. It is
for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
deciding the facts in this case, you might have to decide
which testimony to believe and which testimony not to
believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part
of it, or none of it.
considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into
1. the opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear
or know the things about which the witness testified;
2. the witness's memory;
3. the witness's manner while testifying;
4. the witness's interest in the outcome of the case and
any bias or prejudice;
5. whether other evidence contradicted the witness's
6. the reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light
of all the evidence; and
7. any other factors that bear on believability.
considering the testimony of Michaela Osborne, you may take
into account that she received favored treatment from IDS in
connection with this case. In evaluating Osborne's
testimony, you should consider whether and, if so, the extent
to which, her testimony might have been influenced by this
are some of the factors you may consider in deciding whether
to believe testimony.
NO. 7 (page 2)
weight of the evidence presented by each side does not
necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify.
have heard testimony from persons who, because of education
or experience, are permitted to state opinions and the
reasons for their opinions.
testimony should be judged just like any other testimony. You
may accept it or reject it, and give it as much weight as you
think it deserves, considering the witness's education
and experience, the reasons given for the opinion, and all
the other evidence in the case.
the law, a corporation is a person, but it can only act
through its employees, agents, directors, or officers. The
law therefore holds a corporation responsible for the acts of
its employees, agents, directors, and officers, if but only
if those acts are authorized. An act is authorized if it is a
part of the ordinary course of employment of the person doing
fact that a party is a corporation should not affect your
decision. All persons are equal before the law, and a
corporation, whether large or small, is entitled to the same