Torres v. Hansen

Background

After a three-day trial and two days of deliberations, the jury reached a verdict on some of Mario Torres’s claims against Mike Hansen and Daniel Smith but could not reach a verdict on one claim against Hansen.

Jury verdict

The jury found:

- On Claim 1, concerning warrantless entry into an apartment, in favor of Hansen and Smith. - On Claim 2, concerning excessive force before handcuffing, in favor of Smith, but it could not reach a verdict concerning Hansen. - On Claim 3, concerning excessive force after handcuffing, in favor of Hansen.

After questioning by the court, the jury stated that further deliberations on Claim 2 against Hansen would be fruitless.

Court’s discussion and order

The court discussed whether it could accept the verdicts that the jury had reached and declare a mistrial on the deadlocked claim. It concluded that it had discretion to do so when accepting a partial verdict would not risk inconsistent results. The court was inclined to accept the partial verdict because the claims involving excessive force before handcuffing against Smith and Hansen could produce different, noncontradictory verdicts, and Claims 1 and 3 were independent of Claim 2. The court did not make a final decision on that issue in this order.

Instead, the court referred the parties to a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Spero, to take place by videoconference on December 6, 2023. The court also set a further status conference for December 15 at 3:00 p.m. The opinion’s text does not clearly state the year for that status conference date. Judge Susan Illston signed the order.