United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
TARANEH F. MOMENI-KURIC Plaintiff
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant
of the jury, these instructions will be in three parts:
first, general rules that define and control your duties as
jurors; second, the rules of law that you must apply in
deciding whether the Plaintiff has proven her case; and
third, some rules for your deliberations. A copy of these
instructions will be available for you in the jury room.
GENERAL RULES CONCERNING JURY DUTIES
that you have heard the evidence and the argument, it is my
duty to instruct you about the applicable law. It is your
duty to follow the law as I will state it. You must apply the
law to the facts as you find them from the evidence in the
case. Do not single out one instruction as stating the law,
but consider the instructions as a whole. Do not be concerned
about the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me. You must
follow and apply the law.
I say in these instructions indicates I have any opinion
about the facts. You, not I, have the duty to determine the
must perform your duties as jurors without bias or prejudice
as to any party. The law does not permit you to be controlled
by sympathy, prejudice, or public opinion. All parties expect
that you will carefully and impartially consider all the
evidence, follow the law as it is now being given to you, and
reach a just verdict, regardless of the consequences.
has the burden in a civil action, such as this, to prove
every essential element of plaintiffs claim by a
preponderance of the evidence. If plaintiff should fail to
establish any essential element of plaintiffs claim by a
preponderance of the evidence, you should find for defendant
as to that claim.
by a preponderance of the evidence" means evidence,
which as a whole, shows that the fact sought to be proved is
more probable than not. In other words, a preponderance of
the evidence means such evidence as, when considered and
compared with the evidence opposed to it, has more convincing
force, and produces in your minds belief that what is sought
to be proved is more likely true than not true. This standard
does not require proof to an absolute certainty, since proof
to an absolute certainty is seldom possible in any case.
you are otherwise instructed, the evidence in the case
consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, here in
Court or by video deposition, regardless of who called the
witness, all exhibits received in evidence regardless of who
may have produced them, and all facts and events that may
have been admitted.
arguments, objections, and questions by the lawyers are not
evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they have said
in their opening statement, closing arguments, and at other
times is intended to help you understand the evidence, but it
is not evidence. Anything you may have seen or heard when the
Court was not in session is not evidence.
AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial.
evidence" is direct proof of a fact, such as testimony
by a witness about what the witness said or heard or did.
evidence" is proof of one or more facts from which you
could find another fact.
should consider both kinds of evidence. The law makes no
distinction between the weight to be given to either direct
or circumstantial evidence. You are to decide how much weight
to give any evidence.
the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the
weight their testimony deserves. You may be guided by the
appearance and conduct of a witness, or by the manner in
which a witness testifies, or by the character of the
testimony given, or by evidence contrary to the testimony.
should carefully examine all the testimony given, the
circumstances under which each witness has testified, and
every matter in evidence tending to show whether a witness is
worthy of belief. Consider each witness' intelligence,
motive and state of mind, and demeanor or manner while
the witness' ability to observe the matters as to which
the witness has testified, and whether the witness impresses
you as having an accurate recollection of these matters.
Also, consider any relation each witness may have with either
side of the case, the manner in which each witness might be
affected by the verdict, and the extent to which the
testimony of each witness is either supported or contradicted
by other evidence in the case.
or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, or between
the testimony of different witnesses may or may not cause you
to discredit such testimony. Two or more persons seeing an
event may see or hear it differently.
weighing the effect of a discrepancy, always consider whether
it pertains to a matter of importance or an unimportant
detail, and whether the discrepancy ...