The Estate of Demetrius Stanley v. City of San Jose

Nature of the order

The court entered Pretrial Order No. 1 after holding a final pretrial conference on January 17, 2024. The order organizes the issues and evidence for the scheduled jury trial; it does not resolve the remaining claims on their merits.

Issues remaining for trial

The order identifies three issues for the jury:

Claims and trial theories

The defendants argued that the negligence or wrongful-death claim was brought only by the estate and not by Mimi Lebreton individually. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the complaint gave sufficient notice that Ms. Lebreton brought the claim for herself and on behalf of Demetrius Stanley’s estate. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed on that basis.

The plaintiffs clarified that they intend to argue that Officer Baza should have used or moved his car to help identify himself as a police officer. The court understood that clarification to modify the joint pretrial statement and found that the plaintiffs did not intend to argue that Officer Baza should simply have driven away rather than shoot Mr. Stanley.

The court allowed the defendants to present a comparative-negligence defense between Officer Baza and Mr. Stanley, and no one else. The plaintiffs did not object to that defense at trial. The court found the defendants’ proposed defense under California Government Code section 818 moot because the plaintiffs confirmed that they were not seeking punitive damages.

Officer immunity

The defendants renewed their request for a ruling that Officer Baza was immune under California Government Code section 820.2 for his decision to remain under cover. The court explained that section 820.2 generally protects a public employee from liability for an injury resulting from an act or omission that exercises discretion vested in the employee, subject to statutory exceptions.

Applying California’s distinction between protected policy or planning decisions and unprotected operational conduct, the court found that the decision to conduct covert reconnaissance of Mr. Stanley’s residence might qualify for immunity. However, the court found that the manner in which the reconnaissance was carried out was not protected by discretionary immunity. The order therefore distinguishes between the decision to undertake the operation and the way the operation was performed.

Bifurcation of the trial

The court ordered the trial bifurcated, meaning that liability and damages will be handled in separate phases. In the first phase, the jury will decide liability and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages. If the jury finds for the plaintiffs and finds an entitlement to damages, the same jury will immediately proceed to a second phase to determine the amount of damages.

Witness rulings

The court addressed the proposed witnesses as follows:

- The plaintiffs stipulated that they will not call Kevin Stanley or Sam Gulley. - The plaintiffs may not call Nia Stanley because they did not identify her in their required initial disclosures and did not show that the failure was justified or harmless. - The court addressed objections to Roger Clark’s proposed testimony in a separate order concerning the defendants’ motions in limine. - The plaintiffs may not call Dr. Michelle A. Jorden during the liability phase to testify about the manner or cause of Mr. Stanley’s death. The court reserved judgment on whether she may testify about damages. - The plaintiffs agreed not to call a custodian of the City of San Jose’s records. - The plaintiffs may call Officer Lopez and Sergeant Mark Johnston, subject to rulings in separate orders on motions in limine. - Detective Amanda Estantino was excluded from testifying during the liability phase. The court reserved judgment on whether she may testify during a damages phase. - The defendants may not call Dr. Jorden during the liability phase to testify about toxicology results. The court reserved judgment on other possible damages testimony from her.

Exhibit rulings

The court directed the parties to confer about proposed photographs and to eliminate duplicate exhibit numbers and duplicative exhibits. It also ruled as follows:

- The parties must confer about which post-incident photographs may be used and submit a joint statement regarding any remaining disputes. If admitted, those photographs may not be called “crime scene” photographs. - The audio recording of an interview of Officer Jorgensen was excluded except for impeachment, meaning use to challenge a witness’s credibility. - The plaintiffs may not present Dr. Jorden’s autopsy report during the liability phase to show the manner or cause of Mr. Stanley’s death; the court reserved judgment on other possible uses. - The plaintiffs’ photographs of Mr. Stanley’s autopsy were excluded. - The parties must confer about using a photograph of Mr. Stanley as an adult during the liability phase. The court reserved judgment about photographs during a damages phase. - The plaintiffs’ expert report from Mr. Clark was excluded because expert reports identify opinions and their bases but are not themselves admissible evidence. - The defendants’ warrants were excluded unless the defendants can show that Officer Baza had and reviewed those documents before the shooting. The court clarified that the defendants may present evidence about information Officer Baza knew or was aware of at that time. - Detective Estantino’s reports about the March 2021 armed robbery were excluded during the liability phase, with damages-phase admissibility reserved. - The defendants’ copy of Dr. Jorden’s autopsy report was excluded for the proposed liability-phase toxicology use, with other uses reserved. - The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s post-incident report was excluded except for impeachment.

Trial administration

The court ordered the parties to submit a joint list of interested persons and entities, revised proposed jury instructions, and revised verdict forms by January 24, 2024. The court set a preliminary jury-instruction conference and a hearing concerning hardship excuses for prospective jurors for February 1, 2024.

The planned jury will have nine jurors, and each side will have three peremptory challenges. The jury trial was scheduled for February 5 through February 9, 2024, unless otherwise ordered. The order also addressed limited questioning of prospective jurors, exclusion of fact witnesses from the courtroom, courtroom recording restrictions, equipment requests, and potential jury costs if the parties settled without timely notifying the court and dismissing the case.