Sarah Jones v. Nik Richie - Jury Instructions & Verdict Forms

7/28/2019 Sarah Jones v. Nik Richie - Jury Instructions & Verdict Forms

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/sarah-jones-v-nik-richie-jury-instructions-verdict-forms 1/18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION Eastern District ofKentucky

AT COVINGTON F I LED

JUL 11 2013AT COVINGTON

ROBERT R. CARRCIVIL ACTION NO. 2009-219 (WOB-JGW)CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT

SARAH JONES PLAINTIFF

VS. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

HOOMAN KARAMIANa lso known as Nik Rich ie

and a lso known as

Corbin Grimes

and

DIRTY WORLD, LLC

doing business as

TheDirty.Com DEFENDANTS

Case: 2:09-cv-00219-WOB-CJS Doc #: 207 Filed: 07/11/13 Page: 1 of 18 - Page ID#:3116

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/TheDirty.Com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/TheDirty.Com



INSTRUCTION NO. 1

You are the so le judges of the c red i b i l i t y of the witnesses

and the weight t he i r test imony deserves . You may be guided by the

appearance and conduct of the wi tness , o r by th e manner in which

the witness t e s t i f i e s , o r by the charac te r o f the tes t imony given,

o r by evidence con t ra ry to the tes t imony.

You should ca re fu l ly examine a l l the tes t imony given, th e

circumstances under which each witness has t e s t i f i ed , and whether

every mat te r in evidence tending to show whether a witness i s

worthy of b e l i e f . Consider each witnesses ' i n t e l l i gence , motive and

s t a t e of mind, and demeanor o r manner while t e s t i f y ing . Consider

the witnesses ' a b i l i t y to observe the mat te rs as to which the

wi tness has t e s t i f i e d , and whether the wi tness impresses you as

having an accura te reco l l ec t ion of these mat te rs . Also, cons ider

any re la t ion each witness may have with e i t h e r s ide of the case ,

the manner in which each witness might be af fected by the verd ic t ,

and the ex ten t which the tes t imony o f each witness i s e i the r

supported o r con t rad ic t ed by othe r evidence in th e case.

Incons i s t enc ies o r discrepancies in test imony of a witness , o r

between th e tes t imony o f d i f f e r e n t witnesses m a y o r may no t cause

you to discredit such testimony. Two or more persons seeing an

even t may see o r hear it d i f f e r e n t l y .

In weighing the e f f e c t of a discrepancy , always consider

whether it per t a ins to a mat te r o f importance o r an unimportant




de ta i l , and whether the discrepancy r e su l t s from innocent e r ro r o r

in t en t i o n a l falsehood.

After making your own judgment, you w i l l give the testimony of

each witness such weight , i f any, t h a t you th ink it deserves . In

shor t , you may accep t o r r e j e c t th e tes t imony of any witness , in

whole o r in p a r t . In addi t ion , th e weight of the evidence i s no t

necessar i ly determined by the number of witnesses t e s t i fy ing to the

ex i s tence o r nonexis tence o f any f a c t . You may f ind t h a t th e

tes t imony o f a smal l number of witnesses as to any f ac t i s more

c red ib le than th e tes t imony of a l a rge number of witnesses to th e

con t ra ry .




INSTRUCTION NO. 2

You must decide th i s case as an act ion between persons of

equal s tanding and worth in the community, and holding the same or

s imi la r s ta t ions in l i f e . A business ent i ty i s en t i t l ed to the

same f a i r t r i a l in your hands as a pr iva te ind iv idua l . A ll

persons, inc luding business e n t i t i e s , s tand equal before the law,

and are to be dea l t with as equals in a cour t of j u s t i ce .




INSTRUCTION NO. 3

Defendants, when they re -pub l i shed the mat te rs in evidence ,

had the same du t ies and l i ab i l i t i e s fo r re -pub l i sh ing l ibe lous

mater ia l as the au thor o f such mater ia l s .




INSTRUCTION NO. 4

In order to recover fo r a defamatory s tatement , the p la in t i f f ,

Sarah Jones, must show the s ta tement i s : (1) f a c i a l l y defamatory,

(2 ) untrue, and (3 ) t ha t the defamatory s ta tement was made with

ac tua l mal ice .

I f untrue, a s ta tement would be l i b e l i f it would: (1) br ing

the person about whom the s ta tement i s made in to publ ic hat red ,

contempt o r r i d i c u l e I (2 ) cause th e person to be shunned o r

avoided, o r (3) in ju re th e person in t he i r business o r occupat ion.

A defamatory s ta tement can be sa id to have been made with

ac tua l malice only i f it was made with knowledge t h a t it was fa lse

o r with reck le s s d i s rega rd of whether it was fa l se o r not .

That i s to say t ha t ac tua l malice en t a i l s more than mere

neg l igence . It requ i re s t h a t the publ i she r of the defamatory

fa lsehood a t the t ime of the pub l ica t ion ente r ta ined ser ious doubts

as to th e t r u th of the publ ished mate r i a l .

Actual malice must be shown by c l ea r and convincing evidence.




INSTRUCTION NO. 5

Under th e F i r s t Amendment, there i s no such th ing as a "false

idea . " This means t h a t every person in th e United Sta tes i s

ent i t l ed to express his or her own personal opinions, even i f those

opin ions a re of fens ive .

In order to pro tec t the r ight to freedom o f speech, defamatory

s ta tements cannot be based on express ions of opin ion , even if th e

opinion i s h u r t fu l , mean, o r in su l t ing . Rather , a defamatory

s ta tement must be based on a f a l se s ta tement of f ac t .

Expressions of opinion are en t i t l ed to s t rong p ro tec t ion under

the F i r s t Amendment. Therefore , a s ta tement o f opinion cannot

support a defamation cla im unless the speaker 's opinion a l so implies

th e exis tence of undisclosed fac ts which are themselves defamatory.

I f a speaker expresses an opin ion based on f ac t s which a re

d i sc losed , then th e speaker 's opinion i s pro tec t ed and cannot

suppor t a defamat ion c la im.




INSTRUCTION NO. 6

You have been in s t ruc ted t h a t in orde r to recover the

Pl a i n t i f f must prove t ha t the s ta tements publ ished were mater ia l ly

fa l se . That i s to say t ha t subs tan t i a l t r u th i s a defense to

defamation, even i f the a l legedly defamatory sta tement was made

with o r in sp i red by malice o r ill wi l l or i s l ibe lous p e r se .

In considering the t ru th as a defense , you are ins t ruc ted t ha t

subs tan t ia l t r u th provides a defense to defamation even i f what was

publ ished i s n ot th e prec i se o r exac t t r u th . Ra t he r minor

inaccurac ies do not amount to fa l s i ty as long as the substance, the

g i s t , o r the s t i ng of the l ibe lous charge i s j u s t i f i ed . Put

another way, the s ta tement i s not considered fa lse unless it would

have a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on the mindof

the reader than the t r u th

would have produced.




INSTRUCTION NO. 7

A s ta tement t h a t contains hyperbole (exaggera t ion) may be

l ibe lous i f the jury be l ieves from the evidence t ha t a reasonable

person could i n t e rp r e t it as implying fa l se s ta tements of fac t .

Ogle v. Hocker, 279 F. App'x 391, 397 (6th Cir . 2008) (and cases

c i t e d the re in) .




INSTRUCTION NO. 8

A s tatement i s not defamatory unless it i s "of and concerning"

the p l a i n t i f f individual ly_ This means t h a t a s ta tement which

c r i t i c i z e s a l a rge group o f people w i l l not support a defamation

claim by each i nd iv idua l member o f t h a t group. This type o f

genera l s t a tement i s not "of and concerning" a n y o n e person and,

t he re fo re , i s not ac t ionable .

So, fo r example, a s ta tement t h a t "a l l lawyers are shysters"

would not permit every lawyer in th e country to sue fo r defamation

because t h i s s tatement was not "of and concerning" anyone spec i f i c

person; it was a genera l comment regarding a l a rge group.




INSTRUCTION NO.9

The fo l lowing a re in s t ruc t ions on Pla in t i f f ' s claim fo r

damages. However, you should not i n t e rp re t the f a c t t h a t you are

given in s t ruc t ions concerning the Pla in t i f f ' s damage claim as

ind ica t ing t h a t P l a i n t i f f should, o r should not , preva i l i n t h i s

case . I t i s your task to determine whether Defendants are l i a b l e .

You are being i n s t ruc ted on damages only so t ha t you w i l l have

guidance in the even t you decide t h a t Defendants are l i a b l e and

t h a t P l a i n t i f f i s en t i t l ed to recover money from Defendants .

However, any damages you award must have a reasonable bas i s in

the evidence . Damages need not be mathematical ly exac t , but there

must be enough evidence fo r you to make a reasonable es t imate of

damages without specula t ion o r guess work.




INSTRUCTION NO. 10

Defendants are no t l i ab le fo r any ai lments Pl a i n t i f f may

su f f e r from those t ha t were caused by anything o ther than any

wrongful ac t ions by Defendants . Simi la r ly , any physica l o r

emotional i n ju r i e s tha t you f ind are a t t r ibu tab le to a cause other

than any wrongful ac t ions by Defendants are not p a r t of th i s act ion

and should not be considered by you.

I f you f ind t ha t th e in jur ie s of which P l a i n t i f f complains

were caused by something o r someone othe r than Defendants, then

Defendants are no t l i ab le fo r such i n ju r i e s .




INSTRUCTION NO. 11

Puni t ive Damages means damages, o ther than compensatory and

nominal damages, awarded aga ins t a person to punish and to

discourage him and others from s imi la r conduct in the fu ture . You

may award Pl a i n t i f f puni t ive damages only i f she has proven by the

evidence t ha t Defendants acted toward Pla in t i f f with oppression,

fraud o r malice . "Oppression" means conduct which i s spec i f i ca l ly

intended by the defendan t to subject the p l a i n t i f f to c rue l and

unjus t hardship . "Fraud" means an i n t en t iona l misrepresenta t ion ,

dece i t , o r concealment of mater ia l fac t known to the defendant and

made with the i n t en t ion of causing in jury to the p l a i n t i f f .

"Malice" means conduct which i s spec i f ica l ly intended by the

defendant to cause t angible or in tangible in jury to the p la in t i f f .

I f you f ind from th e evidence t ha t Defendants acted toward

Pl a i n t i f f with oppression, f raud o r malice, then you may in your

d i sc re t ion award pun i t ive damages to Pla in t i f f .




INSTRUCTION NO. 12

I f you determine t h a t puni t ive damages should be awarded, you

sh a l l then determine th e sum of puni t ive damages. In determining

the amount o f puni t ive damages to be assessed, you should consider

th e fol lowing f ac to r s :

(a) The l ike l ihood a t the re l evan t t ime t h a t se r ious harm

would a r i s e from the defendants ' misconductj

(b) The degree o f the defendants ' awareness o f t h a t

l ike l ihood j

(c) The p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f th e misconduct by th e defendants j

(d) The dura t ion of the misconduct and any concealment 'of it

by th e defendan ts i and

(e) Any ac t ions by th e defendants to remedy th e misconduct

once it became known to the defendants .




SPECIAL VERDICT

please answer the fol lowing ques t ions according to the

Ins t ruc t ions given:

1 . Has the p la in t i f f , Sarah Jones, proved tha t any of the

defamatory pos t ings concerning her descr ibed in the evidence were

subs tan t ia l ly fa l se a t the t ime they were posted?

Yes .;:;? No

NOTE: I f you answered Question 1 "NO," please re turn to the

courtroom. I f you answered Question 1 "YES," please cont inue to

answer the fol lowing Question. .




2. Do you f ind by c l e a r and convincing evidence t ha t the

fa l se post ings were made with the Defendants ' ac tua l knowledge of

t h e i r f a l s i t y o r reckless d is regard for the t ru th?

Yes No

Foreperson

NOTE: I f you answered Question 2 "NO," please re tu rn to the

courtroom. I f you answered Question 2 "YES," please proceed to thenext Quest ion.




3. What sum in damages do you f ind fo r the p l a i n t i f f , Sarah

Jones, to compensate he r fo r her mental anguish and damage to he r

repu ta t ion as a proximate r e s u l t o f sa id fa l se post ings? Such

damages sha l l not be awarded fo r any period a f t e r February 1, 2011.

4. I f you answered Quest ion No.3 with an amount, do you, in

your d i s c r e t i on , wish to award puni t ive damages to th e P l a i n t i f f ,

under Ins t ruc t ions 11 and 12 above?

Yes No

Foreperson




5. I f you answered Question No. 4 "YES," what sum in punitive

damages do you wish to award to the Plaint i f f , Sarah Jones, under

Ins t ruct ions 11 and 12 above?

Foreperson


Sarah Jones v. Nik Richie - Jury Instructions & Verdict Forms

Documents

Transcript of Sarah Jones v. Nik Richie - Jury Instructions & Verdict Forms