Vargas v. Lopez

Background

A jury trial was scheduled for October 20, 2025. Plaintiff Ernesto Vargas and Defendants Officer L. Lopez-Ortega and Lieutenant C. Whitman submitted joint statements addressing two pretrial issues: the courtroom attire and restraints of two incarcerated non-party witnesses, Berlan Dicey and David Falcon, and evidence of indemnity during the punitive-damages phase.

Incarcerated Witnesses

Vargas argued that Dicey and Falcon should appear in prison clothing without shackles because visible restraints could unfairly suggest to the jury that their testimony was less credible. The defendants argued that the witnesses should be restrained in the manner deemed appropriate for transportation and courtroom safety.

The court ordered Dicey and Falcon to appear in prison clothing. It found that the circumstances did not establish a need for shackling during their testimony. Although the court acknowledged that both witnesses were serving life sentences for first-degree murder, it noted that they would be in the courtroom only briefly and that officers from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be present to provide security. The court concluded that this was a sufficient, less restrictive security measure.

Punitive-Damages Evidence

Vargas asked the court to exclude evidence or argument concerning the defendants’ personal liability for punitive damages and any hardship that an award might cause. The defendants opposed the request and argued that they should be permitted to present evidence about their net worth and ability to pay if they sought to mitigate punitive damages. They also requested a jury instruction stating that they would be personally liable for any punitive-damages award.

The court found that evidence and argument concerning the defendants’ personal liability and hardship were relevant and admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. It reasoned that the defendants’ financial worth could be relevant to the amount of punitive damages and that the jury would necessarily be aware of the defendants’ personal liability if they presented financial-worth evidence to mitigate damages.

The court declined to give the requested personal-liability instruction. It explained that the previously adopted punitive-damages instruction already addressed how the jury should assess punitive damages, and the defendants had not shown that the additional instruction was warranted.

Rulings

The court ordered that Dicey and Falcon appear in prison attire and not be shackled during their testimony or in the presence of the jury. Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied Vargas’s request to exclude evidence and argument about the defendants’ personal liability for and hardship arising from punitive damages. The judge also denied the defendants’ request for a jury instruction stating that they would be personally liable for any punitive-damages award.