Victor Velasquez v. City of Santa Clara
675 F. App'x 710
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victor Velasquez sued Santa Clara officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force after officers shot him during an attempted arrest/flight.
- At trial the jury returned a verdict for defendants; Velasquez appealed challenging various evidentiary and post-trial rulings and the sufficiency of the evidence.
- During deliberations the jury asked about the required level of proof; the district court directed them to the existing jury instructions rather than giving a supplemental definition.
- The district court admitted three booking ("mug shot") photos showing Velasquez’s tattoos as relevant to the officers’ knowledge and risk assessment.
- The court excluded evidence of the officers’ prior shootings in connection with Velasquez’s Monell failure-to-train claim.
- The district court denied Velasquez’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury question about burden/level of proof | Jury remained confused; district court should have provided further clarification | Jury instructions already contained correct legal definition; directing jury to instructions was proper | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in answering by directing jury to instructions; no indication confusion persisted |
| Admissibility of booking photos showing tattoos | Photos were prejudicial and should have been excluded | Photos were relevant to what officers knew (gang affiliation/risk assessment) and probative value outweighed prejudice | Affirmed — admission was within district court’s discretion as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Admission of prior officer shootings (Monell failure-to-train) | Prior shootings showed a training/policy pattern and deliberate indifference by the City | Plaintiff failed to show prior incidents involved constitutional violations or a pattern demonstrating deliberate indifference | Affirmed — exclusion proper because plaintiff did not show prior incidents established a pattern of constitutional violations required for deliberate indifference |
| Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on excessive force | Evidence insufficient to support verdict for officers; JMOL should be granted | Jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence and reasonable inferences favoring officers | Affirmed — on de novo review substantial evidence supported the jury verdict; objective reasonableness found on totality of circumstances |
| Motion for new trial | Verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence; a new trial warranted | Jury verdict was not against the clear weight; district court properly exercised discretion in denying new trial | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; no absolute absence of evidence supporting verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court discretion in answering jury questions about law)
- United States v. Evanston, 651 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2011) (directing jury to instructions appropriate)
- United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2004) (admissibility standards for photographs)
- Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (presumption that directing jury to instructions cures confusion absent further inquiry)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference and failure-to-train standard)
- Flores v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014) (pattern of similar violations ordinarily required to show deliberate indifference)
- Gonzalez v. City of Anaheim, 747 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (objective reasonableness factors for deadly force)
- Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in excessive force cases)
- Kode v. Carlson, 596 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing district court denial of a new trial)