Rynearson v. Richter Trial

1
November 9, 2015. Digital 958.
MR. MALDONADO:
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
MR. MALDONADO: 11-C V 705, Richard Rynearson.
MR. MALDONADO: Rynearson, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Rynearson, thank you. Versus Edwin
7
8
9
Richter. Appearances, please.

MR. MALDONADO: Javier Maldonado for plaintiff.
A. Juan Gonzalez for plaintiff, Your Honor.
10
MR. MALDONADO: In Rynearson is present, Your Honor.
11
MR. RALLS: Good morning, Your Honor, mark recalls
12
for Edwin Richter along with Philip Leal with my office and
13
Edwin Richter is present.
14
15
16
THE COURT: Thank you. We need to take up I guess

whatever exhibits are going to be introduced?
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. I think at this
17
time, the only one that comes in the case in chief is
18
Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Defendants 1 as well, it is the
19
plaintiff report, it is the police report prepared by officer
20
Richter.
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Any objection to plaintiff's 1 which is

defendant's 1?
MR. RALLS: I don't have any objection to that, Your
Honor.
file:///Users/richardrynearson/Desktop/110915%20jury%20trial%20rynearson%20v%20richter.txt[11/12/15, 7:29:42 PM]
25
THE COURT: That's admitted.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
2
1
2
THE COURT: Do I have an exhibit list from you,

Mr. Maldonado?
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I need to get it reprinted, it didn't
get to my book. Can you get me a copy?
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Are there any other plaintiff's exhibits
that are unobjected to?
MR. MALDONADO: Plaintiff's Exhibit -- well,
10
actually, the only other exhibit I have, Your Honor, that the
11
Court ruled on on October 22nd was Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. And
12
Mr. Ralls did object to it and the Court ruled on it, I am
13
debating whether I will use it.
14
THE COURT: Okay. Then we will reserve that one
15
until you decide whether to use it and if so whether there is
16
an objection.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, I don't know if he is

going to tie it right before voir dire to.
To use it or not so if we need a bench, can we have
a bench conference before he decides to use it?
THE COURT: Do you intend to, Mr. Maldonado, to
refer to number 5?
MR. MALDONADO: No, Your Honor.
24
THE COURT: Then that takes care of that.
25
THE COURT: Any objections or any exhibits from the

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
3
defendant that we are ready to enter into now or are they all
objected to.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I think the only exhibit
that the defendants are going to have is Exhibit number 1, the
police report.
6
7
8
THE COURT: Okay. That takes care of exhibits,

then, for now.
MR. RALLS: Having said that, Your Honor, of course
unless something changes during the course of the trial. In
10
that event we will approach the bench.
11
THE COURT: Okay.
12
MR. MALDONADO: And I was going to ask for a
13
clarification for that, Your Honor. There was, if the Court
14
remembers, an issue about exhibits relating to the
15
September 2011 refusal to obey am order. There is a reprimand
16
letter, the Court kept it out, but I reread last night the
17
transcript and the Court said, look, you know, if I see that
18
the evidence on the promotion on the May 2010 promotion is
19
weak, I will change my mind. The Court has ruled that the
20
promotion issue -- we can't raise that in front of the jury
21
and request damages. So I just want to confirm that that
22
means that any exhibits relating to 2011, September 2011,
23
refusal to obey an order won't come in.
24
25
THE COURT: What I ruled on last time was strictly

motions in limine. Motion in limine, so those aren't final
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
4
evidentiary rules, they are just rulings on motions in limine.
And so what I ruled was that the failure to obey bay, obey a
lawful command was not coming in at this point in time and I
granted the motion in limine on that point, so that goes --
that ruling would prohibit the defendant from referencing that
issue in front of the jury unless they first approach me and
we discuss why it is relevant and not 403 at that time. And
that was the sole extent of the ruling, just so the record is
clear.
10
11
12
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Anything

else from the plaintiff?
MR. MALDONADO: Not relating to the limine or the
13
exhibits, Your Honor, I just want to bring to the Court's
14
attention that Mr. Rynearson came early this morning and was
15
waiting outside, two jurors one or two jurors did approach him
16
asking what time the Court opened? And I just wanted to let
17
the Court and Mr.
18
MR. RALLS: Know.
19
THE COURT: Thank you thank you, there were no
20
further discussions other than that.
21
MR. MALDONADO: No, Your Honor, I don't believe so.
22
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
23
THE COURT: How much time did I give you all on voir
24
25
dire?
MR. MALDONADO: Twenty minutes.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
5
1
2
THE COURT: Twenty minutes each? And what was the

time on the opening?
MR. MALDONADO: Fifteen.
MR. RALLS: Fifteen.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MALDONADO: On voir dire, Your Honor, is the
Court going to limit the lawyers to remain at the podium or
can we walk around?
9
10
THE COURT: If you stay to the podium that helps

Mr. Myers in recording.
11
MR. MALDONADO: Okay.
12
THE COURT: If you -- when I leave the bench, it
13
will take the jurors about 15 or so minutes to get up here,
14
Mr. Myer can assist you in repositioning the podium that way.
15
You can move your chairs to face that direction as well. And
16
we will conduct voir dire that way. Any other questions?
17
MR. RALLS: No, Your Honor.
18
19
20
COURTROOM DEPUTY: They are ready do you want them

to come up.
21
THE COURT: Yes. Go ahead and bring them up.
22
THE COURT: I will take the bench again once the
23
jury is in place.
24
(Brief recess.)
25
#04: Test test go forward to 8:03. Ralls Mr. Ralls

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
6
practice strokes. Woehr Barnes test test Ms. Barnes,
Mr. Barnes, Ms. Barnes, Mr. Barnes, Paiz Sherner, Ortegon,
Ortegon, Ortegon, Ortegon, Ortegon, Boatwright, Hammoudeh,
Cunningham, Isaac.
MR. GONZALEZ: Test test test test Hewitt, LeBaron,
boss stick Noack, Noack, Hammoudeh. Boatwright, Boatwright,.
THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to federal court here in San Antonio. On behalf of my
colleagues I would like to thank you for your presence here
10
today in answering the call to jury service. I know you all
11
are very busy, I know you all have things to do, work, places
12
to attend to, home affairs to attend to, and so I give you my
13
word we are going to make this a very efficient proceeding for
14
you all and for those of you who are selected as jurors in
15
this case, I am zero known for making sure we move along. So
16
your time will be well used, and I know some of you don't want
17
to be here, a couple of your colleagues already wrote me
18
little notes wanting to be excused. I understand it is an
19
imposition, but I also are tell you this. For those who
20
ultimately are serving as jurors in the case and at the
21
conclusion of their case, I mean, almost without exception I
22
always get people coming up to me afterwards saying, you know,
23
I didn't want to be here initially but it turned out to be a
24
really valuable experience, I learned a great deal, and they
25
walk away from the experience a little bit better for it, and
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
7
so hopefully that will be your situation as well, if you are
selected here. I know some of you have traveled some distance
to get here. Our San Antonio division serves 14 counties, so
some of you have come some way here and I thank you for that.
Now, we are going to be picking a jury for a civil case here.
It is going to be a very short trial. Maybe two, three days
at most. And we are going to be here in a somewhat Dar --
well, if you have been reading the papers I was going to say
somewhat comfortable building. We have been having actually
10
mold and led issues, shows that are selected to be jurors,
11
don't drink the water here. We will have bottled water for
12
you, and if you are drinking the water fountains I would
13
suggest you don't do that either. We are in the 1968 world's
14
fair building. And I in start asking some questions, anybody
15
here attend the 1968 world's fair. I have one hand. Do you
16
remember what this building was, sir? This was the U.S.
17
pavilion, so if you walked into this building building, it
18
didn't have any courtrooms, offices, it was like an early Imax
19
theer the, so you walked into the middle of the building and
20
they projected sights and sounds of these United States
21
against the bare walls and that's what this building was. It
22
was built to be a temporary building and I think we have
23
exhausted the temporariness of this building now, but needless
24
to say, it is still somewhat comfortable. We got the air
25
conditioning on, and we will be in good shape. Now, I will be

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
8
asking you a few questions here to get started, then I am
going to turn it over to the lawyers so they can ask their
questions here. If you will do me a favor. If you are going
to respond to a question if you could please stand, say your
name, say your juror number, and speak very clearly the
because we have Mr. Myers over here taking down everything we
say and to assist him in that process, it would help if you do
stand and do speak up. Now, some of you might be concerned
about being a juror. You know, can I get this right? I don't
10
like making decisions. You know, the realization is, we make
11
decisions every day. How many people on the panel right now
12
are parents? You know, almost everybody here. You know, the
13
reality is, as a parent we make decisions every day. We told
14
our kids at one point in time, yes, you can do that, no you
15
can't do that, so this is a little more complicated than that,
16
but, you know, the reality is, decision making is an inherent
17
part of our life and this is no different. But with that said
18
does anybody here hold any kind of religious belief that
19
prohibits you from serving as a juror and making a decision in
20
a civil case? Anybody here hold that kind of religious
21
belief? No hands. Okay. More questions. Again, my name is
22
Xavier Rodriguez, my courtroom deputy here is Becky Greenup, I
23
was going to say in the plaque but they are both wearing
24
black, Becky wear your hands, Karl Myers over here is my court
25
reporter, he is taking down everything we say. Reuben Aguilar

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
9
in the back is the bail HIV, or the courtroom security
officer, hiding back over here is mare I didn't Kate Farrow he
is a law clerk and brand-new lawyer who serves with me for a
year as an interim training and providing me some assistance
and research. Anybody here know either me or any of my staff?
No hands. Good. Continuing with introductions.
Mr. Maldonado, if you would please stand. Mr. Maldonado is
the attorney who represents the plaintiff in this case,
Richard Rynearson. Mr. Maldonado, can you introduce who is at
10
your name, Juan Gonzalez my co-counsel and Richard Rynearson,
11
my client, the plaintiff.
12
THE COURT: Thank you, gentlemen. You can take a
13
14
seat.
THE COURT: Anybody here know Mr. Maldonado,
15
Mr. Gonzalez or Mr. Rynearson? No hands. Good. Mr. Ralls,
16
if you could please stand. Mr. Hauls is an attorney
17
representing Edwin Richter. If you can introduce Who is at
18
your table, good morning, Your Honor, my name is mark recalls
19
this is my legal assistant Philip Leal and I am proud to the
20
represent retired police officer Edwin Richter.
21
THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody here knows
22
Mr. Ralls, Mr. Leal or Mr. Richter? No hands. Good. Let me
23
explain so you a little bit about what this civil case may be
24
about and I will give you this very brief introduction, just
25
so you know what this case may be about and whether we can
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
10
determine whether you would be a suitable juror to sit in this
case. This is a civil rights dispute. It is arising out of a
traffic stop in which the plaintiff, Richard Rynearson was
pulled over by the defendant, then police officer now retired
Edwin Richter. Officer Richter alleges that Mr. Rynearson
failed to signal when changing lanes, but when Mr. Rynearson,
he maintains he was in compliance with the traffic laws at all
time. Mr. Rynearson, the plaintiff claims that when he was
asked why he had been stopped, officer Richter stated he want
10
to verify that Rynearson had a valid driver's license because
11
supposedly his vehicle had out of stateliness plates.
12
Mr. Rynearson also alleges that he had his driver's license
13
and insurance ready to hand to officer Richter, but that when
14
he asked the officer if the stop was lawful, officer Richter
15
responded by arresting him. Officer Richter, on the other
16
hand, claims Mr. Rynearson repeatedly refused to provide his
17
license and proof of insurance and that gave him probable
18
cause to arrest him. Mr. Rynearson is suing then officer
19
Richter for allegedly violating his Fourth Amendment right to
20
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and he
21
alleges that his First Amendment right to be free from
22
retaliatory arrest was violated. Officer Richter maintains
23
that because he had probable cause to detain Mr. Rynearson he
24
is entitled to qualified immunity for all of his actions.
25
That is a brief background about what I believe you are going

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
11
to hear in this case. That said, let me ask some questions
regarding these allegations. Has anybody here on the panel
ever been employed by the San Antonio Police Department in any
capacity? Law enforcement officer, administrative role,
anything like that? Anybody here formerly or currently
employed by the San Antonio Police Department? No hands.
Anybody here have a member, a close family member, a six
blink, a mother, a father, your son or daughter who is
employed by the San Antonio Police Department? Oh, is a quiet
10
group. This is going to be hard to bust. Okay. Let's expand
11
the question. Anybody here or a close family member of yours,
12
anybody, law enforcement, I will use that phrase very broadly,
13
military police, FBI, DEA, Bexar County sheriff's department,
14
any sheriff's department, any police department, anybody here
15
have an association or their family member has an association
16
with the police department of one type or another? Okay.
17
Finally hands. Let's go one by one. Mr. Barnes.
18
A. Yes, my knew, her mother is with the FBI.
19
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. And who else did I
20
see up there, Mr. Woehr.
21
A. Yes, my wife is in the army.
22
Q. Is she a plaintiff, police, miss Milan Lucic triparticular
23
police four the army?
24
A. He is a doctor.
25
Q. I am sorry, I want to go with police departments first.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
12
But your point might come up in a minute. I thought a saw a
couple more hands there. Number, I am sorry, I can't see your
number?
A. Sticks.
Q. Ms. Sherner?
A. Yes. My son-in-law and my brother-in-law are both retired
police officers.
Q. Okay city?
A. My son-in-law was Marion.
10
Q. Marion Texas, right outside of San Antonio?
11
A. Uh-huh and my brother-in-law is -- New York.
12
Q. Thank you, Ms. Sherner. Mr. Ortegon, did you have your
13
hand up?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Second row. Yes, Ms. Boatwright?
16
A. My father was in the military police.
17
Q. And is he still in or is he retired?
18
A. He retired.
19
Q. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else on that row?
20
Q. This side over here, any hands? Ms. Hewitt?
21
A. Yes. I don't have family members, but I was a prosecuting
22
attorney at the DA's office for almost 20 years, so I have
23
many friends that are police officers and in all of the
24
agencies.
25
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
13
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. Thank you, is that with Bexar County?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. And anybody else on that row? Ms. Noack?
A. My husband -- is a sheriff of -- he is retired now.
Q. Thank you. And Ms. Hildebrand?
A. Several close friends with Comal County.
Q. Okay. In the sheriff's department or police department?
A. Sheriff's department.
10
Q. Thank you. And Mr. West.
11
A. My son, stepson Border Patrol in Laredo, and my cousin
12
retired from San Antonio Police Department.
13
Q. Thank you, sir.
14
Q. And Mr. Isaac?
15
A. My cousin's husband worked for.
16
Q. Bexar County?
17
A. No, in Houston.
18
Q. Harris County, Houston. Thank you, Mr. Isaac. Now, the
19
question for almost all of you who raised your hand, the
20
question is, for those of you who have a close family member
21
who is law enforcement of some type or another, Mr. Richter,
22
of course, was a police officer in San Antonio, he is now
23
retired. Can everyone on this panel who raised their hand
24
treat Mr. Richter's testimony just like anybody else's
25
testimony or the mere fact that he is a police officer, would

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
14
that incline you to believe him more and cause you to be --
and I hate to use the word bias because no one likes to say I
am biased if I asked who is biased here, nobody is going to
raise their hand, eight but we are trying to treat both sides
fairly here, Mr. Rynearson and Mr. Richter. So for those of I
don't you who identified yourselves as having some
relationships or close family members with police officers or
law enforcement officers, the fact that Mr. Richter is a
former San Antonio police officer, is that going to cause you
10
a problem in this case in frequent both sides equally?
11
Anybody here think this is not the case for them? Ms. Hewitt.
12
Thank you. For that honest response. I will get back to you.
13
Anyone else? Thank you. Before I gave you this little
14
summary about this case, had anybody heard about this case
15
beforehand? No hands. Good. Prior jury service, has anybody
16
here ever served on a grand jury? A grand jury is a little
17
different than what we have here. The grand jury is the body
18
of individuals who decide whether to bring a charge against
19
somebody and later, and then later they are actually tried in
20
a courtroom. Has anybody here ever served on a grand jury?
21
No hands. Okay. With regard to prior jury service here, has
22
anybody here ever served on a civil or criminal jury in which
23
a police officer was a defendant? Mr. West.
24
A. I guess. That was DWI.
25
Q. And was the police officer accused of driving while under

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
15
the influence?
A. No, no. It was the opposite, he was the -- the police
officers pulled the person over for --
Q. Okay, (16) so he was just just the arresting officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Thank you. (That was 16. Anybody here actually
determined the guilt or innocence or liability of a police
officer in a previous civil case? No hands. Okay. Other
than Ms. Hewitt, is anybody here a lawyer or been to law
10
school? No hands. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I am
11
going to turn this over to the lawyers to ask their questions.
12
Again, if you could speak up, you are doing a good job so far,
13
whenever you need to respond to a question, they may have of
14
you. And we will start with Mr. Maldonado first.
15
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
16
morning. And again thank you very much for being here today
17
to help us decide these issues. I hope you will find them
18
like myself very interesting. I am going to ask you some
19
questions. I want to know about you. I want to know what
20
your ideas or opinions are. There is no -- I know in -- there
21
is no -- this is a judgment free zone so I get to go in there
22
and nobody judges me if I move slowly. This is a judgment
23
free zone, nobody is going to judge you for what you say.
24
Anybody here ever served in a criminal jury?
25
A. Number 3, number 11, number 14, 15. Number 3. Do you

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
16
remember what was the burden of proof in that case?
A. Whether or not the police officer had reason to pull a
certain vehicle over, I think.
Q. Right. And do you remember being told or learning through
the process that in order to find -- and this was a criminal
case, correct?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Learning that in order to find the defendant guilty you
had to find beyond a reasonable doubt?
10
A. Yes.
11
Q. Yes. Has anybody else heard that phrase, beyond a
12
reasonable doubt. Okay. Excellent. Do folks understand that
13
in these sorts of cases that standard, in civil cases that
14
standard doesn't apply? Do folks understand that beyond a
15
reasonable doubt is not the standard in this case? Can you
16
tell I see what your understanding was beyond a reasonable
17
doubt? Juror number 3?
18
A. Well, that there was no doubt at all whether there was
19
innocence or guilt or reason to believe the officer had the
20
right to pull his vehicle over.
21
Q. Okay. And juror number 3, do you know what the standard
22
of proof -- juror number 2, what the standard of proof is in a
23
civil case?
24
A. No.
25
Q. Anybody knows? Number 15, what is the standard?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
17
A. It is a preponderance of evidence.
Q. Preponderance of the evidence. Has anyone hear not heard
that phrase? Can you raise your hands? Number 4, number 7,
number 12, 8, and 9. Juror number 15, do you have an
understanding of preponderance of the evidence? Standard?
A. My understanding is there is enough evidence where it
appears that the, what is it, the person is guilty or not.
Q. Right. And so whether there is enough evidence that a
fact was proven, so more likely than not, some people say
10
51 percent. Anyone here does not understand that standard?
11
Once I put it that way? So you will hear from both sides, and
12
then you will say, you know, more likely than not it happened,
13
or based on the evidence we think 51 percent the fact was
14
proven or not proven. Anyone here does not understand that
15
standard? So what we have here today is a case about a civil
16
rights claim. A claim that a constitutional right was
17
violated, and that claim has been brought against a police
18
officer. Anybody here think bringing a lawsuit, a civil
19
rights lawsuit against a police officer where the standard of
20
proof is 51 percent, preponderance of the evidence, that that
21
is too low or too easy? Jury number 5?
22
A. No.
23
Q. June number 9?
24
A. No.
25
Q. Anybody here -- anybody here think that from what you have
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
18
read in the media, when you listen -- what you listen to on
the radio that police officers are unfair he sued for
violations of civil rights, juror number 7?
A. No.
Q. Job number 1?
A. No.
Q. Juror number 2?
A. No.
Q. Anyone think that a person is asking for trouble if the
10
person questions an officer about his duties? Anybody have
11
any interactions with a police officer where they were ticked
12
or issued a citation? Anyone? Almost everyone. Number six,
13
do you believe that you are asking for trouble if you ask a
14
police officer to explain himself?
15
A. No.
16
Q. Anyone here thinks -- have folks heard in the news or
17
overtime in the radio that people filed civil rights cases or
18
cases about constitutional violations, have people heard that?
19
They are familiar -- are you familiar with it? Anybody here
20
think that too many of those cases are being filed? Juror
21
number ten?
22
A. No.
23
Q. Juror number 11?
24
A. No.
25
Q. June number 12?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
19
A. No.
Q. Juror number 12?
A. No.
Q. Any of you, have you heard that people in civil suits can
get what are called damages for emotional or mental pain and
anguish? Juror number 18 have you heard that?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Number 4, have you heard that people in civil rights cases
can get damages for mental pain and anguish?
10
A. No.
11
Q. Juror number 12?
12
A. No.
13
Q. Does anybody not know what mental pain and anguish is?
14
Juror number ache?
15
A. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
16
Q. Do you know when I use the phrase mental pain and anguish,
17
do you understand generally what that means?
18
A. Yes.
19
Q. Do you think people should not get money for that?
20
A. I think people should.
21
Q. Anybody shares juror number ache's opinion that they
22
should get money, that individuals who have suffered mental
23
pain and anguish as a result of their rights being violated
24
that they should get compensated for that?
25
JURORS: Yes?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
20
MR. MALDONADO: Anybody who does not share this
belief? Remember there is a judgment free zone. Anybody who
thinks that juries are giving too much money to plaintiffs?
Juror number 14.
A. No.
Q. Juror number 13?
A. No.
Q. Juror number 16?
A. No.
10
SPEAKER: I do.
11
Q. Number 11?
12
A. Number 11.
13
A. I think sometimes they get excessive.
14
Q. They are getting excessive?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. (11).
17
Q. And anybody share juror number 11's opinion?
18
Q. Oh, number six. Anybody think that these sorts of cases,
19
civil rights cases, are brought simply by individuals who want
20
money? Number 1?
21
A. No.
22
Q. Number 9?
23
A. Repeat question.
24
Q. Sure. Do you think that these civil rights cases are
25
brought by individuals who just want money?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
21
A. No.
Q. Number six?
A. No.
Q. For those people that said, yeah, you know, people should
get compensated for mental pain and anguish, any of you think
that in order for you to award money damages for mental pain
and anguish that you need to hear from a doctor saying that
the plaintiff suffered mental pain and anguish? Juror number
12?
10
A. I think we should be able to make that decision when we
11
listen to the people.
12
Q. Juror number 5 you were going to say something?
13
A. I think a doctor would need to relay his information,
14
whether there was actually suffering.
15
Q. Okay. Juror number 4, do you share that?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. So if anybody else here thinks, and I don't want to put
18
words into juror number 5's mouth, anybody here else think
19
that simply the plaintiff getting up there and saying, you
20
know what? This was really traumatic for me, you know, this
21
is not an excessive organization case but let me give you an
22
example this was really traumatic, I was slammed against the
23
car, I was thrown to the ground, I, you know, every time I
24
think about that, I can't help crying. Anybody else here
25
thinks that in order for you to compensate that individual you

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
22
would need to hear from the doctor about that trauma, juror
number -- juror number 18, 19, and 20. Anybody shares that
opinion with 18, 19, and 20? Juror number 2?
A. I would have to review a it case by case.
Q. Sure. Juror number 3?
A. In some instances, maybe.
Q. Okay. Juror number 8?
A. I think a doctor is unnecessary.
Q. I didn't hear that?
10
A. I think a doctor is unnecessary.
11
Q. Thank you. Number 7, do you share that opinion?
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. Number six?
14
A. I think in some cases you would need to have a little bit
15
more collaboration or than somebody just standing up there and
16
saying this happened.
17
Q. Sure? And do you have an idea of what sort of those cases
18
are, just so we get an understanding of that?
19
A. I am sorry?
20
Q. Do you have an understanding on what sort of cases do you
21
think I need to hear from a doctor?
22
A. I think if it was someone saying that they were in such
23
mental anguish that it was affecting their lives, then I would
24
like to see some collaboration of that.
25
Q. Sure?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
23
A. If it was -- I was very upset that this happened and I
didn't seek any medical attention because it wasn't that, that
difficult, then maybe not.
Q. Sure. Thank you, thank you juror number 6. Juror number
11?
A. In some instance I would think if there was that much
trauma a psychiatrist or a doctor, I think that would make it
more believable.
Q. Okay. That is very good. Anybody share juror number 11's
10
opinion? Number ten, number 5, number six, 20, 19, 17, 18,
11
14.
12
A. Can I add to that too, I would it is think (11) if they
13
would need to -- a psychiatrist or something that they went go
14
actually go help themselves to try to improve, like I say just
15
I want the money.
16
MR. MALDONADO: Sure, sure. Excellent. Let me ask
17
a another, a different question. What about anybody thinks
18
here that in order to compensate someone for violation of
19
their constitutional right, let's say you try to go to the
20
county Clerk's Office and fill out and submit a paper and you
21
are just close the door and say we are not going to let you
22
file any of your paperwork, not today, we are not allowing
23
people over 40 to file their a let's say voter registration,
24
anybody think for that sort of violation that they shouldn't
25
get any damages?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
24
JUROR: I don't understand the question.
Q. Sure. I am suggesting 11:59 and 59 seconds if they close
the door for everybody.
Q. Just for people over 40?
A. 11:59 and 59 seconds for the day?
Q. For the day, you are not going to -- people over 40 you
can't come in. And so-so and so this is not mental anguish,
mental damages just your right was violated, do you think in
those cases, look, there is no blood, no broken bones, no
10
money, anybody here thinks they should should get any money in
11
this case Tutu I would just go the next day and proceed with
12
life.
13
Q. Anybody think that way number 7, number 4, number 3,
14
number 13, 12, and 11. Number 9.
15
JUROR: I am sorry.
16
Q. Seventeen and 18. Let's take it differently, let's say
17
anybody here thinks that if you were -- if you go to can the
18
clerk's office and the clerk uses excessive force, they slap
19
you, no broken bones, no blood, nothing, you just get slapped,
20
and it was by a public official, so, you know, you were
21
filling out a form, they used excessive force, anybody here
22
think they shouldn't get money because there was no blood, no
23
long-term damage to a person's psyche? Number 2?
24
25
You know, personally, I wouldn't want to go through

the halls.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
25
Q. Okay?
A. And I would just, you know, take it on the chin and get on
down the road.
Q. Sure. Anybody share number 2's opinion?
A. 1313 I would want to defend myself and slap them back.
Q. I didn't hear that June 13?
A. I would slap them back.
Q. Okay. That's one way to handle it. But anybody think
that, you know, if you are sitting on the jury you shouldn't
10
get money for that, number 17?
11
A. I would seek reprimand, I wouldn't need money for it.
12
13
14
15

A. Number 18, same thing.
MR. MALDONADO: Nineteen and 20.
A. 1313 and that is a joke, I wouldn't want money but I would
16
want something done 11 I coo kind of agree with her as well,
17
it doesn't have to be in the form of money 1919 Twenty20 at
18
this agree with number 13. I would just slap them (19 or 20).
19
MR. MALDONADO: Anybody here, anybody here thinks
20
that federal courts like this one, shouldn't be the place
21
where we decide, you know, constitutional violations? Number
22
one?
23
A. Can you repeat that question?
24
Q. Sure. Do you think that questions about -- that your
25
rights were violated, that they shouldn't be hurt here in

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
26
federal court?
A. 11 no, I think they should be heard here in federal court,
sure.
Q. Does anybody here not share that opinion? Anybody here
think that only certain constitutional -- certain cases about
constitutional violations should be heard here? So for
example, remember my, we talked about the lady slapping you at
the clerk's office, that you think that sort of case shouldn't
be heard here? Anybody beliefs that that sort of civil rights
10
claim should not be heard here? Number 3?
11
A. Well, I don't -- I don't know why it shouldn't. Sure.
12
Q. Oh, I was just thinking, I don't know if you were one of
13
the persons who said, you know what, you know, that is not the
14
sort of case where I would --
15
A. That is up to the individual, if someone wanted to pursue
16
the case and end up here, I don't see a problem with it.
17
Q. Must be 2?
18
A. This is the venue for all such cases, should somebody want
19
to file. It is an individual choice.
20
Q. Okay. Number six?
21
A. Yes, I think the system --
22
Q. Okay. Do most people here agree that police officers have
23
a difficult job? Anyone here who does not believe that? All
24
right. Anyone here believe that because officers have a
25
difficult job it should be more difficult to sue police

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
27
officers? Juror number 2?
A. I don't have a strong opinion on that. I would have to
look at it on a case-by-case basis.
MR. MALDONADO: Juror number 1?
A. Yeah, could I hear the question again?
Q. Sure. You agree that police officers have a difficult
job? Right?
A. Yes, yes, absolutely.
Q. And do you think that because they have a difficult job it
10
should be Hora difficult to sue them for civil rights claims?
11
A. No, I don't think it should be more difficult to sue them,
12
no.
13
Q. Juror number 4?
14
A. No.
15
Q. Juror number ten?
16
A. No, nothing.
17
Q. Number 11?
18
A. No.
19
Q. Twelve?
20
A. (Shakes head.)
21
Q. 8?
22
A. No.
23
Q. (Indicating).
24
Q. Anyone here ever filed a complaint against a law
25
enforcement officer?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
28
Q. Anyone here ever had a close family member file a
complaint against a police officer, and by close, family
member, I mean spouse, siblings, parents or children?
THE COURT: And you have two minutes.
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. Anyone here ever been disrespected or harassed by a law
enforcement officer? Juror number six?
A. No.
Q. Juror number 5?
10
A. No.
11
Q. Juror number 9?
12
A. No.
13
Q. Anyone here believe that -- strike that. Anyone here
14
believe that the First Amendment claims or protections have
15
gone too far in this country? That people are shrouding
16
themselves in the First Amendment too quickly or too easily,
17
juror number 14?
18
A. To some degree, yes.
19
Q. Anybody shares that, juror number 2?
20
A. To some degree.
21
Q. Juror number 11?
22
A. I do.
23
Q. Number six?
24
A. I am not sure. I am not sure.
25
Q. Anyone here believes that because police officers enforce

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
29
the law they are more likely to tell the truth, juror number
3?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Juror number 5?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Juror number 4?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. Number 9?
Q. Did I run out of time?
10
THE COURT: You have 30 seconds.
11
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you,
12
jurors.
13
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Ralls.
14
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning
15
16
again, ladies and gentlemen.

JURORS: Good morning.
17
Q. I also want you to be here to help us decide these issues
18
here today.
19
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* I don't think this is going to be a
20
very long trial. I think we may be finished by tomorrow some
21
time so hopefully we will keep it moving. I need to follow up
22
with some questions that plaintiff's counsel didn't ask you
23
about complaints or lawsuits against police officers. You all
24
said that nobody had -- none of you are none of your family
25
members had actually filed a complaint against a police

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
30
officer, correct? There is nobody here that has happened?
Has anybody ever been, anybody ever filed a lawsuit against a
police officer? Whether, either you all or somebody on your
family or a close friend, family member? No? Okay. Has
anyone here been a witness in a case against a police officer?
Juror number 20?
A. Kind of it didn't get to court, it had to do with internal
affairs.
Q. Okay. Thank you.S Ms. Hewitt? All right. Has anybody --
10
we were talking about bad experiences. Has anybody here ever
11
had a bad experience with a police officer regarding a traffic
12
ticket? Whether you felt that the officer was rude or
13
discourteous or you shouldn't have gotten the ticket?
14
Anything like that? Nobody? Has anyone ever had an encounter
15
with a police officer or seen an encounter of somebody else
16
having an encounter with a police officer where you thought
17
that that police officer abused his authority in any way?
18
That he went beyond the bounds. Okay. Let's see, number 17.
19
And you are Ms. Hildebrand?
20
A. (Witness nods head).
21
Q. And Ms. Noack?
22
A. Yes.
23
Q. You did also?
24
A. How about Ms. LeBaron did you raise your hand.
25
A. (Witness nods head.)

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
31
Q. That is 16, 17 and 18. Has anybody else seen something
like that?
THE COURT: Ses is.
THE COURT: It was 17, 18, 19.
Q. Oh. Thank you, Your Honor. Juror number 3. Can you tell
us what you saw? 33 it was on telephone, I mean you see it on
telephone, you know, not in person but.
Q. Gotcha?
A. But you have seen it on telephone.
10
Q. All right. Actually that was going to be one of my later
11
questions so let's go ahead and address that now. In has been
12
obviously a lot of media coverage about the police in the last
13
couple of years at least I guess , you know, this va whole
14
different situation to be decided on, the facts and evidence
15
that are presented before you in this courtroom. Is there
16
anything about what you all have seen on telephone, on media
17
coverage regarding police that would make you, the judge
18
didn't want to use the word bias, biased, but let me ask, this
19
would make you lean one way or the other, as far as the police
20
are concerned? That would make you lean against the police
21
for some reason you could not be fair? Mr. Miller?
22
A. No, I can be fair.
23
Q. (3).
24
Q. This case, by the way is going to be decided on the facts
25
and the evidence that is presented before you in this case and
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
32
that will be the testimony from the witness stand and any
documents that are introduced into evidence. So everybody, is
everybody comfortable that you can put aside all of that
information that you may have seen on telephone or through any
kind of media coverage and decide it just on the facts and
evidence in this case? All right. Now, everybody says that,
or almost everybody said that you received a traffic citation
in the Arizona. And has it been the -- everybody's experience
that when an officer comes up to your car that he typically
10
introduces himself and tells you what you have been pulled
11
over for? Mr. Barnes, has that been your experience?
12
A. Yes, it has.
13
Q. Okay. Mr. Miller?
14
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
15
Q. Ms. Paiz?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. Okay. Ms. Moody?
18
A. They ask if I know why they are pulling me over first.
19
And when I say no, then they respond with what I tell them.
20
Q. All right. And typically or has it been your experience
21
that when a police officer pulls you over for a citation that
22
is it that he has asked for your driver's license and your
23
insurance, proof of insurance? Jurors modding.
24
Q. Has anybody here ever refused for whatever reason, whether
25
you thought the stop was legal or illegal or just didn't like
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
33
the looks of a police officer, anybody refused to provide the
officer with your license and insurance when you were asked
for it? Has anybody resisted the officer and said, look, I
don't think this is a legitimate stop, why are you, you know,
why are you pulling me over and refuse to give your license or
insurance? Nobody? Anybody know of anybody that has done
that, a family member, close friend? This case, I will tell
you is going to involve an arrest arising out of a traffic
violation, that is a failure to Signal a lane change. Is
10
there anybody here that believes that a person should never be
11
arrested for a simple traffic violation?
12
A. Just for a simple traffic violation?
13
Q. Right?
14
A. Yes.
15
16
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, may we approach and that

was number 12.
17
THE COURT: Come on up.
18
MR. MALDONADO:
19
(Bench conference, as follows:)
20
MR. MALDONADO: Mr. Ralls is getting, is asking
21
questions about the facts of the case and in voir dire,
22
specific facts and my understanding voir dire is that is not
23
allowed.
24
25
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I have to ask those kinds of

questions dash to show bias.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
34
1
2
THE COURT: You haven't crossed any boundaries at

this point, you can continue.
(End of bench conference.).
MR. RALLS: All right, Mr. Taylor, I think you were
following up on my question about the traffic citation.
A. For a simple violation, why would somebody be arrested?
Q. Well, I can't really answer that?
A. I mean, the question was, should anybody be arrested for a
traffic violation, I say no, they should be ticketed and sent
10
on their way.
11
Q. Under no circumstances in your opinion should they ever be
12
arrested for a traffic violation?
13
A. I don't see if anybody is in danger or, I mean it depends
14
-- you know, I don't see how somebody could be arrested to are
15
a traffic violation. I mean just ticket them and let them go.
16
Q. 1414 you said a simple violation?
17
MR. RALLS: Right, well I am talking about, so I
18
think that jury is going Judge is going to instructs you at
19
the end of this case that a police officer can arrest somebody
20
for any kind of violation of the law committed in the
21
officer's presence. And that would include traffic
22
violations, except for, I believe that would include traffic
23
violations except for speeding and there is one other I can't
24
think of, but so that -- I think that is what the law is going
25
to be instructed to you. So is there anybody here who can't

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
35
follow that law if you are instructed by the Court that -- and
officer, an officer can make an arrest for a traffic
violation. Is there anybody here who can't -- that would just
disagree with the Court and couldn't follow his instruction on
that 11 I am not familiar with that law at all, I honestly
didn't think they had a rights to a arrest you for a simple
infraction of traffic law. So --
Q. Number 7?
A. Indicating.
10
Q. Let, let in let me ask you this, Mr. Barnes, would that
11
prevent, I mean, if the Judge were to instruct you that that
12
is the law, would you be able to follow that instruction of
13
the Judge?
14
A. 11 absolutely, absolutely.
15
Q. No question about that?
16
A. No question about that.
17
Q. How about Mr. Woehr, am I pronouncing your name correctly?
18
A. Ware. Ware it is German.
19
Q. Would you be able to follow that instruction?
20
A. Yes.
21
Q.
22
able to a follow that instruction if, in fact, the judge
23
instructs you to that effect?
24
A. 1212 can you clarify something, the you say if a person
25
got pulled over for a violation, an officer has a right to
Is there anybody here in the panel that would hot be
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
36
arrest that person? Is that correct?
Q. I believe that is what the judge is going to instruct you?
A. Okay. I believe that is wrong, I believe that should be
some kind of law that should be changed but we are not here to
dispute that but I don't see where that could be -- that just
seems wrong.
Q. Okay. Well, if you were selected on this jury, and the
jury instructed you that that is the law and that you were to
follow that law, would would you be able to follow the Court's
10
instruction?
11
A. I would have a hard time following that because my blood
12
pressure is pumping right now thinking somebody could arrest
13
you for taking a wrong corner or turning down the a wrong way
14
street I would have a zero problem with that, yes, sir. (12]
15
Q. And do you think that would prevent you from being fair
16
and impartial in this case?
17
A. I mean if that was the case he got arrested because he
18
turned down, he didn't turn on his traffic light or turned his
19
signal on or something, yeah, I would, I mean, yeah, I guess I
20
would have a problem with that.
21
Q. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Taylor for your candor in that
22
regard. Is there anybody else that feels the way that
23
Mr. Taylor does? That feels like you could not be fair and
24
impartial and follow the law as the judge instructs you if, in
25
fact, he instructs you that way? Are you sure? That is an
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
37
important question, anybody -- this is voir dire it means to
tell the truth you are not being judged here. Okay 77 I would
have a problem with it.
Q. All right. Mr. -- I am sorry. Juror must be 7. And
would that prevent you, Mr. Ortegon from being a fair and
impartial juror in this case?
A. They, it would just bother -- it is just ridiculous, that
is ridiculous.
Q. All right so you would not be able to follow the Court's
10
instructions?
11
A. 77 no. Not like that.
12
Q. All right. Well now we are gaining some ground here, so
13
that is important to me, in this case, is there anybody else
14
that would not be able to fool the Court's instructions in
15
that regard? And this is -- this is very important to my
16
client is everybody sure about that? Okay. So I take it that
17
no one here knows anybody that has been that ran arrested for
18
a traffic citation or traffic violation; is that correct? Let
19
me change gears here and ask you some questions. The evidence
20
in this case, first of all, all of you are going to be the
21
judges of the facts in this case, the judge is going to be the
22
judge of the law, but you are going to have to judge the facts
23
in this case. And in doing so you are going to have to
24
determine the credibility of witnesses in this case. I will
25
tell you that the plaintiff in this case, the evidence is

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
38
going to show that the plaintiff in this case is -- or at
least at the time of this incident was a major in the United
States Air Force, does just the fact that he was a major in
the United States Air Force, would that affect your ability to
judge his credibility in this case? Would that make anybody
believe that he was more of a credible witness than you might
otherwise think he would be, just because he is an officer in
the Air Force? Yes, ma'am?
A. Sixty-six I think it might.
10
Q. Ms. Sherner? Your husband is a retired U.S. army?
11
A. (Witness nods head).
12
A. Yes.
13
Q. And what was his job in the army 66 he was -- he is a
14
nurse anesthetist.
15
Q. So all right. Do you believe that the fact that the
16
plaintiff in this case is a major or was at least a major in
17
the Air Force, do you think that would render you unable to be
18
fair and impartial in this case?
19
A. I think I would be able to be fair but I can't -- it might
20
influence me a little bit.
21
Q. It would not be a level playing ground between possibly
22
between the defendant and the plaintiff in this case in your
23
mind?
24
A. Probably not.
25
Q. All right. Is there anybody else that feels that way now
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
39
that Ms. Sherner has shared her feelings about it? Does that
prompt anyone else to share any feelings? Okay. I will also
tell you that the evidence is going to show that the plaintiff
in this case, Mr. Rynearson, was a pilot in the Air Force and
flew, deployed a number, on a number of occasions to Iraq and
Afghanistan and flew a gunship in close air support for
frowned troops over there. Would the fact that, knowing that,
would that influence anybody's opinion with regard to giving
Mr. Rynearson's testimony greater credibility than you
10
otherwise would give it?
11
JUROR: Raising hand.
12
Q. Jury 18 raising hand.
13
Q. Anybody else? Yes, sir.
14
A. I would any I would give a little more credibility knowing
15
what he has been charged with, having the responsibilities and
16
being a major and (this is 11) and pilot and stuff like that.
17
Q. All right.
18
A. It would weigh a little more --
19
Q. Would it -- would it affect your ability to be a fair and
20
impartial juror in this case?
21
A. Probably not.
22
Q. You could -- do you think you could set that aside and
23
just decides on the facts that you hear?
24
A. I would think so) all 11).
25
Q. Is there anybody else that it might affect? Some or a

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
40
little or a lot? Yes, sir. Mr. Ware?
A. My wife has (2] has received Woehr support from air assets
while on the ground in Iraq, so I have tremendous respect for
that, but I would be able to set that aside and just look at
the facts of this case.
Q. Okay.Ly also tell you that Mr. Rynearson has received a
number of commendations for his service as a pilot in the Air
Force, including the distinguished flying cross and some other
medals. How -- would that affect anybody's ability to --
10
knowing that, would that make you five his testimony greater
11
credibility than you might otherwise give his testimony?
12
Okay. Nobody? All right. Is there anybody here that is
13
familiar with the intersection of Losoya and Commerce streets
14
here in San Antonio?
15
A. Anyone else.
16
A. Phen Fen I probably passed it a 100 times but --
17
Q. All right?
18
THE COURT: You have two minutes.
19
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor,.
20
Q. We talked a little bit about the burden of proof in this
21
case. The burden of proof in this case is going to be on the
22
plaintiff to prove each and every allegation against the
23
defendant in this case by a pend. A and that means at least
24
51 percent or, more likely than not. That includes not only
25
the liability facts, that is, whether he was, in this case

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
41
unlawfully arrested, but also the damages facts, so the
plaintiff is required to prove by a preponderance of the
evidence, starting at zero, every dollar of damages that he is
claiming in this case. Is there anybody here that believes
that you could not make the plaintiff -- that you could not
put the plaintiff to that burden of proof as far as damages
are concerned in this case? I will also tell you that there
are going to be times that counsel make objections in this
case and when we make objections it is because we believe that
10
we have a solid reason for not -- for that evidence not coming
11
in for some reason, not because it is to hide any evidence,
12
but is there anybody here that would hold, hold it against us,
13
hold it against me if I made an objection to evidence on
14
behalf of my client?
15
THE COURT: And your time has expired.
16
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor.
17
THE COURT: If the lawyers would come up, please.
18
(Bench conference, as follows:)
19
20
THE COURT: Do you want me to bring up anybody else

here for further questions, any motions to strike for cause?
21
THE COURT: Should we just go down the road, row
22
anything on number one? Nothing. Anybody on number 2,
23
nothing. Anybody on number 3? Nothing. Anything on number
24
4? Nothing. Anybody on number 5?
25
MR. GONZALEZ: Judge on number 5, I think that

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
42
person said they need a doctor to see about damages which is
not the standard of the law.
THE COURT: Let me bring her up.
THE COURT: Ms. Moody. Could you come up. Hi, how
are you, come up a little closer, if you can. Ms. Moody, as
part of this case, the testimony that the jurors were going to
hear is going to be something to the effect that, and the
jurors are plea to believe or disbelieve as they see fit but
some of the evidence may be from Mr. Rynearson that he
10
suffered mental anguish as a result of the alleged actions
11
that took place in the case.
12
JUROR: Okay.
13
THE COURT: I don't believe the jurors are going to
14
hear any medical testimony from, pardon me any testimony from
15
a medical doctor or psychiatrist or psychologist.
16
JUROR: Okay.
17
THE COURT: The law provides that a plaintiff can
18
testify as to their own mental anguish that they allegedly
19
suffered.
20
JUROR: Okay.
21
THE COURT: If that's all that takes place and
22
Mr. Rynearson is the sole person who provides testimony about
23
mental anguish.
24
A. Yes, sir.
25
THE COURT: Would you be willing to consider that or

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
43
would you reject it because you think that there has to be a
medical doctor.
3
4
JUROR: No if the law states he can testify to his

own anguish then I will follow the law.
THE COURT: Any questions?
MR. GONZALEZ: No.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. GONZALEZ: The same thing for number 4. Number
10
4. That same irk, 4, 5 and 6 have those issues.
11
THE COURT: Do you want me to bring 4 up or not is.
12
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, please.
13
THE COURT: Ms. Paiz.
14
THE COURT: Hi, how are you, ma'am? Good.
15
Ms. Paiz, the law in these types of cases is that a plaintiff
16
can testify as to their alleged mental anguish that they
17
allegedly suffered. I believe what is going to take place in
18
this case is that Mr. Rynearson is going to take the stand, he
19
is going to testify as to what allegedly happened to him, he
20
is going to testify as to what allegedly he suffered mentally
21
as a result of the actions. The defendant will have a chance
22
to cross-examine Mr. Rynearson. Mr. Question to you is,
23
assume that's what happens and assume that Mr. Rynearson
24
doesn't call any medical doctor to the stand. Would you be
25
willing to consider Mr. Rynearson's allegations of mental

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
44
anguish or would you require some kind of medical doctor to
testify?
A. No --
4
5
6
7
8
9
THE COURT: You could hear his testimony and.

A. Yes.
THE COURT: And you could consider that.
A. Yes. Give it a chance and see.
THE COURT: You would not require a doctor?
A. (Shakes head.)
10
THE COURT: Do you have any questions.
11
MR. GONZALEZ: I have one Judge, in these type of
12
civil rights cases if you heard or do you have an opinion as
13
to whether or not mental anguish damages can be given?
14
JUROR: Can be given.
15
MR. GONZALEZ: For a civil rights case?
16
JUROR: This is the first time in a civil rights
17
case so --
18
MR. GONZALEZ: If the judge tells you that mental
19
anguish damages can be given, if you find that there was a
20
violation, can you follow his instructions?
21
JUROR: Oh, yes.
22
MR. GONZALEZ: No questions, Judge.
23
THE COURT: Anything?
24
MR. RALLS: No.
25
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
45
THE COURT: Ms. Sherner. Hi, ma'am, how are you.
A. Fine, thank you.
Q. Ms. Sherner, you were asked some questions about whether
or not the fact that Mr. Rynearson is a major in the Air Force
would play a role in your deliberations?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Can you hear all the evidence in this case that he
presents and the defense presents and just make a decision
based upon that and disregard the fact that he is a major or
10
does that pose a problem for you in this case?
11
A. I guess it is hard to say until you are actually in the
12
position to hear everything, but I just -- I think -- it
13
speaks to his character. I guess I would have -- and police
14
officers are in the military so I feel like I am sort of in
15
the middle there. I would do my best to not let it enter. I
16
can't promise that it wouldn't, though.
17
THE COURT: All right. And you are right, until you
18
are actually in there who knows what will happen, you are
19
right.
20
A. I don't know. I would just have to wait and see.
21
THE COURT: Any questions.
22
MR. GONZALEZ: And just on the mental anguish
23
aspect, Judge.
24
THE COURT: Go ahead.
25
MR. GONZALEZ: And, ma'am, if the evidence was

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
46
presented and you believed there was a violation, but no
doctor, testified, would you still be able to give mental
anguish damages if a court instructed you that those are still
open, even without a doctor?
A. If he instructed me, yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Halls.
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Ms. Werner, how long, you
said that your husband is retired from the army and how long
was he in?
10
A. Thirty-three years.
11
MR. RALLS: And he retired as an officer.
12
A. Colonel.
13
MR. RALLS: Colonel, so are, given that, are you
14
sure that you can set that aside and not let that influence
15
your deliberations in this case as to credibility, as far as
16
the credibility of the major Rynearson?
17
18
JUROR: If you asked me for yes or no I will have to

say that I don't think I could.
19
MR. RALLS: That you could not? To.
20
JUROR: I would try any very best, but if I had to
21
say yes or no, I probably would be more biased toward him than
22
toward the other.
23
24
25
MR. RALLS: That's fine. That's what we need to

know.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
47
MR. GONZALEZ: Judge I have a question, obviously
people will come here, they don't come here as clean slates,
they come in with their backgrounds, like car salesmen, it is
harder to belief than a policeman, that's not the standard, I
think framing it that way is confusion confusing to the jury.
THE COURT: Right. She cuts both ways, I mean, and
so if there is an agreement to strike her, I will strike her,
but otherwise, she is a potential liability to both sides. So
do you want me to agree, do you want an agreement to strike
10
her or not?
11
MR. RALLS: Wells --
12
THE COURT: So there is a motion to strike from the
13
defendant, that is denied. She says she can try. She
14
equivocates but nevertheless, you know, if push came to yes or
15
no, she will say I am somewhat buys add but everybody comes in
16
with buy asses her previous other testimony was she would try
17
to be fair and set it aside so the motion to strike for cause
18
is denied.
19
20
THE COURT: The next one is Mr. Ortegon. I mean,

that one seemed clear.
21
MR. GONZALEZ: I am sorry, Judge.
22
THE COURT: Mr. Ortegon.
23
MR. GONZALEZ: It is clear he would be stricken, I
24
didn't catch that, Judge.
25
THE COURT: He clearly said he was unable to follow

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
48
the law.
MR. GONZALEZ: Judge, I would like to talk about
that, if the issue was who would have a problem if a police
officer arrested arrests you for a minor traffic violation,
everybody and their mother is going to say they do. The issue
is.
7
8
THE COURT: I will bring in I him up. Mr. Ortegon.

Could you come up? Spa.
9
10
11
12
MR. GONZALEZ: It is a different situation between

whether -THE COURT: Hi, how are you.
A. Fine, how are you.
13
THE COURT: Good. Mr. Ortegon, at the end of the
14
case, I give a written instructions to the jury about what the
15
law is, and the jury is the judge of the facts, so they decide
16
whether this happened or whether that happened. But the judge
17
gives the instructions on what the law is. And the oath that
18
the jurors take is that they will abide I by the law, whether
19
they agree with it or not. So with that said, if I gave an
20
instruction that said that police officers can arrest somebody
21
for a traffic violation, can you follow that law?
22
JUROR: If -- honestly, I would have a problem with
23
it, I am not going to lie to you. That just sounds so wrong,
24
that because somebody doesn't put on a turn signal.
25
THE COURT: There are a lot of things about this job

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
49
I have to do whether I agree with it or not too and the same
thing answer with the jurors. You have to -- we wouldn't have
a rule of law if each juror got to decide what they think the
law should be.
A. I understand.
THE COURT: So if that is going to be the law my
sole question is can cow follow it or this is not the right
case for you?
JUROR: This is not the right case for me.
10
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
11
A. I apologize.
12
THE COURT: No, not at all,.
13
MR. RALLS: Thank you.
14
THE COURT: Thanks.
15
THE COURT: Number 7 is stricken for cause.
16
THE COURT: Why do they have the numbers this way,
17
18
19
20
it is weird.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: At the at the bottom. That is
what they are on the sheets. Adjust disregard that.
MR. GONZALEZ: Your Honor, on this issue, there is a
21
distinction, so our position is clear between an officer has
22
the discretion to arrest somebody, as opposes as opposed to an
23
officer must I think that is a distinction that may be
24
confusing so many of these folks.
25
THE COURT: Well, I mean, but.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
50
MR. GONZALEZ: And, Your Honor, I think it is within
the juror's privy to say, in that circumstance should the
officer, because.
4
5
THE COURT: But if he has the discretion and he

exercises that discretion that doesn't vitiate his qualified
6
7
8
9
10
immunity for the action.

MR. GONZALEZ: Unless the reason he did it, Judge is
for impermissible reason.
THE COURT: The bottom line is, though -- well, I am
not going to debate this right now. Let's continue on.
11
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, sir.
12
THE COURT: Number 8, anybody want to call her up?
13
MR. GONZALEZ: No.
14
THE COURT: Mr. Ralls.
15
16
THE COURT: Number 9.
17
BY MR. MALDONADO:
18
19
MR. GONZALEZ: June number 9 they have a position if
20
there is a violation that somebody should just get over it as
21
opposed to going forward.
22
THE COURT: Do you want me to call her up?
23
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes.
24
THE COURT: Ms. Hammoudeh.
25
THE COURT: Hi, how are you, ma'am.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
51
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Ms. Hammoudeh, so you sort of got a
little idea of what this case is going to be about, the
plaintiff is alleging that his civil rights were violated, and
so the jury gets to decide those facts, they get to decide
whether his rights were violated and if they decide his rights
were violated, they get to decide how much if anything he
should recover. And so in this case, what I believe is going
to happen is that Mr. Rynearson is going to testify as to the
10
mental anguish that he allegedly suffered, and so the jury has
11
to evaluate that, consider that, and then decide how much, if
12
anything, they decide to award him if they previously found
13
that his rights were violated are you with me so far?
14
A. Right.
15
Q. If all that takes place and the only damages that are
16
alleged by Mr. Rynearson are for mental anguish, if you were
17
on the jury and if you and the other jurors agreed that there
18
was a violation of civil rights, could you award Mr. Rynearson
19
son mental anguish damages?
20
A. Yes.
21
MR. GONZALEZ: No questions, Judge.
22
MR. RALLS: Nothing, Your Honor.
23
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. Anybody want to call
24
25
unnumber ten, Mr. Cunningham.

MR. GONZALEZ: No, Judge.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
52
1
2
MR. RALLS: I do, Your Honor. I mean -- -- since

his wife is in the Air Force and has deployed --
THE COURT: Mr. Cunningham.
THE COURT: Hi, how are you, sir. Mr. Cunningham,
in this case, you have heard that Mr. Rynearson is a major in
the Air Force, I think your spouse is retired oh you are
retired, okay, you are retired Air Force, and so your spouse
is still in now.
A. She is retired.
10
Q. Both retired, okay. Given Mr. Rynearson's status as an
11
Air Force officer, can you, you know, set that aside and
12
listen just to the facts of this case?
13
A. Without a question.
14
15
16
17
THE COURT: So his status doesn't bother you.

A. Not at all.
THE COURT: Okay. You cub pair to both sides.
A. Yes, sir.
18
19
MR. RALLS: No, Your Honor, no questions.
20
21
Number 11 and 12, Mr. Miller and Mr. Taylor, what do
22
23
you guys want to do?

MR. GONZALEZ: I would like 11 to be stricken,
24
Judge. He says that jurors -- bring your voice down, the act
25
cows sticks,.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
53
MR. GONZALEZ: Bring him up or make a marksman.
THE COURT: You would hike to seen him strike.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: He runs both ways, Mr. Ralls what do you
want to do with him?
MR. RALLS: I think he is -- I have no objection --
THE COURT: To striking?
MR. RALLS: No, I do have an objection to striking.
THE COURT: Well, we will bring him up. Mr. Miller.
10
11
(You will need to get Audiosync for the bench conference.

THE COURT: How are you, sir? Good, Mr. Miller. A
12
couple of questions came up. One is, the status of
13
Mr. Rynearson and him being a major in the Air Force.
14
A. Yes.
15
Q. Can you judge this case solely -- I mean major, other than
16
introduction, that has nothing to do with this case?
17
A. Right.
18
Q. So could you set that aside and just listen to the facts
19
of this case and evaluate those facts a and judge both sides
20
fairly?
21
A. I think so.
22
Q. Okay. And then finances. And monetary, I think what the
23
evidence is going to be in this case, surprised as jurors I
24
hear it at the same time as I do so I don't know for sure but
25
I think what the evidence is going to be in this case is that

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
54
Mr. Rynearson will take the stand, he is going to testify as
to the allegations that he thought happened to him that day,
the the Evans lawyers will have an opportunity to
cross-examine, Mr. Richter will be able to tell his side of
the story, the jury, they are the judges of the facts, they
will decide who to believe and what happened and whether
someone, whether Mr. Rynearson's rights were violated, air
they find that his rights were violated, then they will move
to the question of damages. I believe the only evidence of
10
damages is going to be Mr. Rynearson testifying as to the
11
mental anguish that he suffered as a result of the alleged
12
actions. If that is the only testimony, as a matter of law,
13
plaintiffs can testify as to their mental anguish, they don't
14
need a medical doctor to testify?
15
A. Okay.
16
Q. If that is the state of the law and that's what I instruct
17
the jury, and if you were on the jury, and if you pound
18
liability, could you award Mr. Rynearson damages?
19
A. Yes, reasonable. I mean, I guess I have my own.
20
THE COURT: Each, everybody is going to have their
21
own idea about what is reasonable so the jury will have to
22
figure that out.
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. But actually that is part of my definitions in the
25
instruction is that, you know, I give instructions on how the
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
55
jury should calculate the damages and they can't be
speculative and guesswork and they can't be arbitrary, so each
juror will have to decide among themselves and then
collectively with a group agree to a number.
A. Okay.
Q. Can you do all of that?
A. I think I can.
MR. GONZALEZ: No Judge.
10
11
12
13
JUROR: Okay.
14
THE COURT: Any motions on Mr. Miller?
15
MR. GONZALEZ: No.
16
17
THE COURT: Okay. Next one, Mr. Taylor.
18
MR. GONZALEZ: No.
19
THE COURT: This is Mr. Taylor, number 12.
20
MR. RALLS: I move to strike.
21
THE COURT: He was another one unable to follow the
22
law on and his blood pressure was up already, do you remember
23
him.
24
THE COURT: You don't agree to that?
25
MR. GONZALEZ: I just want to preserve the issue.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
56
When counsel is up there, he generalizes do you agree do you
agree with, I don't agree with that necessarily.
THE COURT: I will bring him up. Mr. Taylor.
THE COURT: Hi, sir, how are you, good, Mr. Taylor,
so you have a little idea about what this case is going to be
about, Mr. Rynearson is claiming his civil rights were
violated, Mr. Richter has a different story, the jury is going
the hear both sides of that. Now, at the end of the case, I
am going to five written instructions on the law that the jury
10
is to apply, so the jury decides the facts, they decide what
11
happened at that stop, who did what, and whether or not
12
Mr. Rynearson's rights were violated, the jury decides all
13
that. But they side it based upon what the judge's law is,
14
and if I give an instruction that a police officer can arrest
15
somebody for certain traffic violations, can you an pied by
16
the instruction or if you didn't like that law, what would you
17
a hard time following that instruction?
18
A. I would have a hard time following the law, I think the
19
law is wrong and needs to be changed and I would make a stand
20
on it to be honest with you. It is wrong.
21
THE COURT: , you know, there are a lot of things
22
about my job that I don't like either.
23
A. Sure.
24
25
THE COURT: But I mean that's what the rule of law

is about, so -- but so what you are telling me this is not the
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
57
right case for you,.
A. Definitely not. And I have no problem with officers, and
I have ultimate utmost respect for them but that is wrong.
THE COURT: Counsel any questions.
MR. GONZALEZ: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any motions with regard to Mr. Taylor.
10
MR. RALLS: I move to strike.
11
MR. GONZALEZ: It seems like a gray area.
12
(Laughter.)
13
MR. GONZALEZ: No objection.
14
THE COURT: Mr. Taylor is stricken. Anybody want to
15
call up number 13, Anderson?
16
MR. RALLS: No, Ms. Anderson. No.
17
THE COURT: Fourteen, Johnson.
18
19
MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, she thinks the doctor would be
20
21
necessary. I will bring him up. Mr. Johnson.

JUROR: Yes, sir.
22
THE COURT: Hi, how are you, sir, Mr. Johnson, you
23
have heard a little bit about what about what this case is
24
about, Mr. Rynearson is claiming his civil rights were
25
violated, Mr. Richter said something different happened there.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
58
The jury is going to hear all that. And they will decide who
to believe, whether Mr. Rynearson's theory is -- meets that 50
plus one threshold or not. You answered a couple of questions
and I want to make sure I got your answers there. If the jury
finds that is the first part, if the jury finds that the
rights were violated, they can consider how much if anything
to award Mr. Rynearson in damages, now I think the only
evidence in this case is going to be is Mr., is Mr. Rynearson
is going to take the stand and say what he thinks happened to
10
him, the defendant will cross-examine, the jury makes up their
11
mind about who to believe, Mr. Rynearson, I think is also
12
going to testify as to how much mental anguish he allegedly
13
suffered and the defendant will cross-examine him on that
14
issue too, but ultimately if the jury finds that his rights
15
were violated, they will get to decide whether or not to award
16
any mental anguish damages. I don't think any medical doctor
17
is going to testify and I will instruct the jury that a
18
medical doctor is not necessary. The plaintiff can testify
19
Taos his own mental anguish. If that is what takes place, and
20
if you find along with the rest of the jury that his rights
21
22
23
24
25
were violated, could you award damages?

JUROR: How do you Judge the amount? I mean there
has to be some sense of measure.
THE COURT: Right an that what makes awarding mental
anguish damages a little difficult. And so I give the jury a
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
59
bit of fines and advice on that, but ultimately it is their
decision on what to do, so you have your own idea probably
about damages and any, as any others would and collectively
the jury is going to reach a decision. But could you award
mental anguish?
JUROR: Possibly I mean --
THE COURT: And also, another question you raised
was about First Amendment rights and you thought maybe that
was being argued a little more common than you would like. In
10
this kind of a case, could you hear all the evidence in this
11
case and then decide this case based only on what you hear in
12
this lawsuit?
13
JUROR: Well, yes, yes, I mean --
14
THE COURT: And then if there was enough evidence to
15
staff you and the jurors that there was liability, could you
16
find the defendant liable?
17
JUROR: That goes without saying, yes.
18
19
MR. GONZALEZ: Basically, you really want to hear
20
from a doctor before you would give mental anguish? Is that a
21
fair statement?
22
JUROR: I am used to dealing, you go through life,
23
everything is measured, how much anguish do you suffer? How
24
do you measure.
25
MR. GONZALEZ: So unless you hear from a doctor it

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
60
would be different.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. GONZALEZ: No more questions, Judge.
MR. RALLS: I don't have any questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
MR. GONZALEZ: Zero move to strike, Judge.
MR. RALLS: No. I think he can be fair and
impartial and listen to the evidence and rule on mental
10
anguish.
11
THE COURT: In response to my questions, he said he
12
could consider it, he raises a legitimate questions about how
13
you measure. I mean, and so that is legitimate, he is not
14
requiring a doctor, though. He would prefer a doctor, but he
15
is not requiring it. And so the motion to strike is denied.
16
17
Okay. Know moving on to 15, Isaac, any objections

pardon me not objections, anybody want to call him up.
18
19
THE COURT: Sixteen, west.
20
MR. GONZALEZ: No.
21
22
THE COURT: Number 17?
23
THE COURT: Are we going to get there? Let's see.
24
MR. GONZALEZ: How many strikes are we going to be
25
allowed? Two or three?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
61
1
2
THE COURT: I was going to give four each so that is

takes us to 17.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Seventeen.
THE COURT: There is going to be a juror of six, I
was going to give.
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Six?
THE COURT: The jury is six. I was going to give
four strikes each, so that is eight. We have already stricken
two. So that is taking us up to 16; is that right?
10
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes.
11
THE COURT: One, two, three, four, five, six,
12
strike, strike, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven,
13
eight, yes so we need to -- we are finished.
14
MR. GONZALEZ: We don't need 17?
15
THE COURT: We do not need 17, now how many days do
16
you think we are going to be, can we be finished by tomorrow.
17
MR. RALLS: I think so.
18
THE COURT: Do we need an alternate juror or not?
19
MR. MALDONADO: Only if the jurors have personal
20
issues about family, hospital, travel, we didn't ask about
21
travel.
22
23
THE COURT: And I already excused somebody on travel

issues.
24
MR. MALDONADO: Day-care stuff.
25
THE COURT: Let's go to Ms. Hillenbrand and see

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
62
whether we need one alternate just to be on the safe side, I
hate to lose anybody. Ms. Hillenbrand, could you come up,
please? Hi, how are you, ma'am.
MR. RALLS: Hi.
THE COURT: Good. There was a question about
whether police were out of bounds change speaker ID, if police
were out of bounds, I don't remember the exact question
anymore. Have you had a personal experience where anybody in
your close family circle, a family, I mean a personal
10
experience with a police officer who acted inappropriately?
11
A. Yes. My husband and I we were in a wedding and there was
12
a confrontation going on with a friend of his concerning
13
another person, he was trying to deescalate the situation, and
14
the officer rather than coming to find out what was going on,
15
saw it as a squabble and sent them both out, kicked them out,
16
I felt it was not right, but he didn't have the opportunity to
17
explain himself, and it was a situation, it left a sour taste
18
in our night for the rest of night because --
19
THE COURT: Right.
20
A. Maybe he was trying to help, because he was trying to
21
help, not give a problem.
22
THE COURT: Given the past experience with your
23
husband that he encouraged, could you listen just to this
24
case, the facts of this case, Judge this case all by itself
25
and set that past experience aside or has that left such a bad
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
63
taste in your mouth that this is not a academy case for you?
JUROR: I feel like I probably could.
THE COURT: You can still be fair?
JUROR: Yes, I think so. I mean, I understand it
from another perspective too. He didn't know what was going
on, maybe he didn't care to at the moment.
THE COURT: Any questions.
10
MR. RALLS: Yes, Your Honor. Yes, ma'am. This case
11
is going to, I mean, it sounds like you have got a little
12
frustrated with that police officer.
13
A. Uh-huh.
14
Q. Maybe acted too quickly?
15
A. Uh-huh.
16
Q. In this case, does it, it involves actions that took place
17
pretty quickly that you may find somewhere in the time time
18
frame to what you encountered, do you think given that, that
19
that seems like maybe you felt the officer was inpatient
20
impatient or somebody, if we have evidence in this case that
21
it happened very quickly, do you think that that would creep
22
back in and make you unable to be fair and impartial in this
23
case?
24
JUROR: I don't think so. I think just it is going
25
to come down to the case and scenario, the situation, in that

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
64
situation, it wasn't right but it doesn't mean it is always
that way.
MR. RALLS: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. Any motion on number
17.
THE COURT: Yes. So we are going through number 17.
We will seat seat a jury of seven. Six in the, six and an
10
alternative, each get four strikes and we have stricken number
11
7 and stricken number 12 for cause. Do you want to keep them
12
in the room while you do your strikes or do you want me to
13
give them a break.
14
MR. MALDONADO: Can you give them a break, Judge.
15
16
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to give
17
the lawyers an opportunity here too exercise their strikes and
18
then us to prepare the jury list. That is going to take about
19
ten minutes. So let me go ahead and give you all a break. If
20
you step outside, men's and ladies rooms are right down over
21
here. If you will stay on this floor, it won't take but ten
22
minutes here to finish this up and I will bring you all back
23
in. There is no one else selecting jurors.
24
COURTROOM DEPUTY: No.
25
THE COURT: And that way I can quickly dismiss those

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
65
of you who I can dismiss and then seats the others who will
serve as jurors. Don't drink the water. And otherwise, you
know, be careful about -- another problem with this building
here being a theatre is that there is no way I can keep you
guys from inadvertently encountering witnesses. So if you
will please keep among yourselves. Don't speak to anybody
else who is not wearing a juror button and that way, a
inadvertently there may be witnesses in this case outside, so
if you engage in an innocent discussion with somebody, you
10
could be inadvertently speaking with a witness in this case,
11
and that could cause appearance problems. So please keep to
12
yourselves and continue associate with anybody else out there.
13
I will bring you back or let's just say ten minutes after the
14
hour, please come back and sit down in your exact location
15
here and then I will be able to dismiss those who I can
16
dismiss. You all are excused for a break. All rise.
17
(Brief recess.)
18
MR. MALDONADO: Test.
19
MR. RALLS: Test.
20
MR. MALDONADO: Test
21
Q. In will will will will will in in will?
22
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.
23
Ms. Greenup, if you will read the names of the impaneled
24
jurors, please.
25
COURTROOM DEPUTY: As I call your name, please come

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
66
forward. Ronald Barnes. Meghan moody.
Priscilla Boatwright.
Harold Cunningham.
Kazan is a Anderson.
Julian Isaac.
Larry west.
THE COURT: Any objections from the plaintiff?
MR. MALDONADO: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objections from the defendant?
10
MR. RALLS: None, Your Honor.
11
THE COURT: If you will swear them in, please.
12
COURTROOM DEPUTY: If you will raise your right
13
hand, please.
14
(oath administered to the jury)
15
COURTROOM DEPUTY: Thank you.
16
THE COURT: Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, to
17
those of you who were not selected, I want to give you my
18
thanks for your presence here today. You know, often times
19
unfortunately it happens more at the Bexar County courthouse
20
than it does here that people do not show up for jury service,
21
and one of the unpleasant tasks that I have but that I do, is
22
fine individuals who do not show up for jury service. You
23
know, after all the sacrifices that other men and women do for
24
our country the least we can do is jury service and so thank
25
you for responding to jury service. I appreciate you

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
67
answering the call. We do not have any other cases in this
courtroom for trial today, so you are going to be excused. If
you will go back down to the jury assembly area, you can turn
in your badge numbers, and your badges, pick up any excuses
that you need for work, and unfortunately, though, that does
not excuse you from calling in for the rest of the month, you
still need to do that, but you are off for today. And thank
you so much for your service. And you all are excused at this
time. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- you can stay here
10
if you like or go downstairs.
11
THE COURT: Members of the jury, you have now been
12
sworn in as the jury to try this case, and as the judge, I
13
will decide all questions of law and procedure. As the jury,
14
you are the judges of the facts. At the end of the trial, I
15
will instruct you on the rules of law that you must apply to
16
the facts as you find them. You may take notes during this
17
trial. This is going to be a short trial. I really don't
18
think there will be a need for notes. You I might actually
19
disswayed you from taking notes but if you want to take notes,
20
you are welcome to. The only reason I am dissuading you from
21
taking notes is sometimes we get so involved in the note
22
taking we have got our face buried in the notepad, and a lot
23
of this, about being a juror is you evaluate the credibility
24
and the believability of witnesses and so you actually need to
25
see people as opposed to burying your face in a notepad the

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
68
facts are not very complicated here, so, but, again if go uh
want to take notes you are welcome to do so, and Mr. Aguilar
can provide you notepads, should you so desire. But don't
allow your note taking, if you decide to take notes, to
distract you from listening to the testimony. Your notes are
an aid to your memory, if your memory should later be
different from your notes, you should rely on your memory. Do
not be unduly unduly influence bed at this notes of others, a
juror's notes are not entitled to any greater weigh than each
10
juror's recollection of the testimony. Until this trial is
11
over, don't discuss this case with anyone and do not permit
12
anyone to discuss this case in your presence. This includes
13
your spouse, children, relatives, friend, coworkers and people
14
with whom you commute to court each day. During your jury
15
service, you must not communicate any information about this
16
case by any means. By conversation, or with tools of
17
technology. For example, do not talk face to face, or use any
18
electronic device or media such as a telephone, a cell or
19
smart phone, camera, recording device, Blackberry, PDA,
20
computer, the Internet, any Internet service, any text or
21
instant messaging service, any Internet chat room, blog or
22
website, such as Facebook, myspace, Youtube or twitter, or any
23
other way to communicate to anyone, any information about this
24
case, until I accept your verdict or excuse you as a juror.
25
Let me expand on that just a little bit. One is, you know,
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
69
you are here to evaluate the testimony and the evidence in
this case. Both from the witness stand and from whatever
exhibits I give you. That is all you are entitled to
consider. All the evidence comes from the four corners of
this room. If you start getting influenced by what other
people tell you outside the courtroom, it could call a
mistrial and all our work would be for nought. So none of us
wants that to happen. Secondarily, smart phones and Facebook,
it has caused a lot of problems for courts around the country.
10
Some jurors in other parts of the country have actually been
11
tweeting during trials, during jury deliberations, they have
12
been sending, oh, this company is really going to get hit hard
13
for millions of dollars. Some cases have actually influenced
14
stock market trading. So, you know, I carry three or four
15
devices, I am a real geek, but, you know, there is a time and
16
place for everything, and this is not the time or the place
17
for any of that. So, again, all the evidence comes from the
18
four corners of this courtroom, and so you need to hear all
19
the evidence from both sides, and then I will charge you on
20
what the law is, and then you all will deliberate and decide
21
this case and so you need to do that without being distracted
22
in any way. During our next break we will take a break for
23
lunch, and tomorrow, I don't think this case will go beyond
24
two days but thunderstorm he what we do is we take a morning
25
break for a quick ten minutes, a lunch break and then a quick
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
70
ten minute afternoon break, and then I will extend you guys
home. This applies to all these breaks and going home
tonight. Do not use the Internet, don't -- well you can use
the Internet, just don't use it about this case. And so this
is not the time to do any research on anything that you hear
about this case. This is not the time to hear or start Google
civil rights and see what pops up, tonight be Google, you
know, cop and arrest and traffic violation, you know, one
thing great about being a juror , there is no homework. Okay?
10
So no homework at all during breaks and then afterwards when I
11
send you all home. Don't discuss this case even with
12
yourselves, other jurors until the end of the case when you
13
retire to deliberate. It is unfair to discuss the case for
14
all the, before the before all the evidence is in because you
15
may become an advocate for one side or the other without
16
hearing both sides. The parties, the witnesses, the
17
attorneys, and persons associated with the case are not
18
allowed to communicate with you, and you may not speak with
19
anyone else in or around the courthouse other than your fellow
20
jurors or court personnel when you are around the building,
21
please continue to wear your juror button, that lets everybody
22
know you are a juror in this case, if there are any witnesses
23
around, they know not to approach you. I am not going to --
24
this building is a windowless building so I am not going to
25
keep you forced back in that little jury deliberation room

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
71
when we take breaks, but the risk of legislate you out,
though, is there is no secure place I can put you without
exposure to other witnesses.
A. So please always be cog any assistant of your
surroundings, don't talk about this case, number one, and 2,
if someone else approaches you, it is just best to say I am a
juror and I am sorry we can't talk. The reason for that, it
is always easy for me to say no, no, no, no, let me explain to
you why. (Letting not legislate) you may be having an
10
innocent discussion with one side or the other side and it
11
could be just about the weather has turned pleasant finally.
12
And so it is a completely innocent conversation but put
13
yourself in the minds of these parties over here. If they saw
14
cow with somebody else from the other side they are probably
15
wondering what is going on over there? What are they talking
16
about? So we want to even avoid those appearances from even
17
taking place. Everybody understand? Thank you. Don't make
18
any independent investigation of this case. You must rely
19
solely on what you see and hear in this courtroom. Do not try
20
to learn anything about this case from any other source. In
21
particular you may not use any electronic device or media,
22
such as telephones, cellphones, smart phones or computers to
23
research any issue touching on this case. Don't go online or
24
read any newspaper accounts of this trial or any other related
25
trials. Do not visit or view anyplace, discussed in this

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
72
case. Do not use any spent programs or other devices to
search for or to view any of the places discussed in this
testimony. In sum, you may not research any information about
this case, the law Hora the people involved including the
parties, the witnesses, the lawyers or the judge, until you
have been excused as jurors. There are some issues of law and
procedure that I may have to decide with the attorneys outside
of your presence. These issues are not part of what you must
decide and they are not properly discussed in your presence.
10
To avoid having to leave thement introduce and to save time, I
11
might discuss these issues with the attorneys here at the
12
bench out of your hearing. When I confer with the attorneys
13
at the bench, please do not listen to that we are discussing.
14
If the discussions require more time, which it shouldn't, that
15
was to the lawyers, I may have you leave the courtroom until
16
the lawyers and I resolve the issues. I will try to keep
17
these interruptions as few and as brief as possible. The
18
trial is going to begin now. The lawyers from each side will
19
make an opening statement. Opening sames are intended to
20
assist you in understanding the significance of the evidence
21
that will be presented. The opening statements are not
22
evidence. What the lawyers say is not evidence. The evidence
23
comes from the witness stand and whatever exhibits I introduce
24
at trial. After the opening statements, the plaintiff will
25
rent his case and the witness testimony and documentary or
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
73
other evidence. Next the defendant will have an opportunity
to present his case. The plaintiff will then be able to
present any rebuttal evidence. After all the evidence is
introduced, I will instruct you on the law that applies to
this case and then the lawyers will make their closing
arguments. Closing arguments are not evidence either. But
rather the attorneys's interpretation office what evidence has
shown or not shown and then finally you will go into the jury
ram to deliberate and reach a verdict. Keep an open mind
10
during this trial. During the entire trial. Don't decide the
11
case until you have heard all of the all of the evidence, the
12
closing arguments and my instructions, now it is time for
13
opening statements and with that I will recognize
14
Mr. Maldonado.
15
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. And with
16
that I, and may it please the Court, good morning, jurors, and
17
thank you again for your service.
18
THE COURT: One second.
19
JUROR: I have a question for you.
20
JUROR: I don't know, I don't know if I should bring
21
it up or not.
22
THE COURT: Well, why don't you come up here.
23
JUROR: He looks familiar, I don't know if I know
24
her or not, I don't know if I know her or not, who is that
25
person, does anybody know? Is she a witness?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
74
MR. RALLS: That is Mr. Richter's wife.
THE COURT: Mr. Richter's wife.
JUROR: I don't know if I know her or not, but with
-- I don't know her by name.
THE COURT: Do you know where she works?
MR. RALLS: I do not, I can ask.
THE COURT: Go ahead and ask him.
JUROR: I just don't want to create a --
THE COURT: No. I appreciate that.
10
JUROR: I may have I may have seen her at the store
11
12
13
or something.
THE COURT: She does work at USAA, do you work in
the same area with her.
14
JUROR: No, I just recall seeing her somewhere.
15
THE COURT: Well, a face with 15,000 people. So you
16
don't socialize with her.
17
JUROR: No.
18
THE COURT: You don't work with her it is just
19
merely you recognizing her by face.
20
JUROR: (Witness nods head).
21
THE COURT: The fact she works at US AA you can set
22
23
that aside. Any objections, questions.

24
25
THE COURT: Thank you for bringing that up? (and

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
75
this is juror 15.
MR. MALDONADO: I think one of us for got to invoke
the rule.
THE COURT: I will invoke the rule.
THE COURT: Are there any witnesses in the --
spectator area.
10
11
THE COURT: The rule has been invoked. By a
12
gentleman if I ever point my finger, somebody walked in that I
13
don't know who -- whether they are a part of the case or not,
14
so I trust that you will check from time to time. Okay. With
15
that, back to opening statements. Mr. Maldonado.
16
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. And again,
17
good morning, jurors. And thank you again for your service.
18
As we start today. As the judge informed you, this case is
19
about, it is a civil rights claim, a civil rights lawsuit
20
about a traffic stop. But it is more than that. It is about
21
a constitutional right to question officers about their
22
duties, about their obligations and about their
23
responsibilities, and whether you or I or anybody else has
24
that authority, that power, that right to do so. We expect
25
that the evidence will show that on September 7, 20none, Ryan

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
76
Rynearson was driving south on Losoya, he put on his signal,
that he was going to turn left on market street on his way
back to Laughlin Air Force Base, in Del Rio. Sunday evening.
We expect that the evidence will show that as he was turning
on market street, he noticed a police car behind him with
flashing lights. We expect that the evidence will show that
he was -- that he made a stop and that when he stopped, he
pulled out his driver's license and his proof of insurance and
he was ready for the officer. We will -- respect that you
10
will hear that Rick Rynearson was ready to hand them over to
11
officer Richter for that stop. We expect that you will hear
12
that when the officer approached the window that officer
13
Richter identified himself and that Mr. Rynearson asked the
14
officer, why kid you, why did you stop me? We expect that you
15
will hear and the evidence will show that Mr. Rynearson --
16
Mr. Richter, officer Richter told Rynearson that the officer
17
stopped Richter because of his Florida license plates and he
18
wanted to check if Rick had a valid driver's license. We
19
expect that the evidence will show that Richter asked the
20
officer to confirm that he had just stopped Mr. Rynearson
21
without justification. We expect that the evidence will show
22
that immediately after that, he was taken out of his vehicle,
23
he was handcuffed, he was put in a miss car, he was taken to
24
the jail and he sat there for six hours. We expect that the
25
evidence will show that Rick never cursed at officer Richter.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
77
We expect that the evidence will show that Rick never made a
threatening motion to the officer. We expect that the
evidence will show that Rick Rynearson was never disrespectful
to officer Richter. At the end of the day, the issue here is
why did officer Richter stop rynearson and why did officer
Richter arrest Mr. Rynearson? We expect that at the close of
the evidence, we ask that at the close of, of the evidence the
judge will instruct you on the law and we will come back and
ask you to find that Rick's constitutional rights were
10
violated, that his right not to be stopped, unless an officer
11
has justification was violated. We will ask you also to find
12
that his arrest where there was no probable cause the was
13
illegal. We will also ask you to answer the question.
14
15
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I don't mean to object, but

it is going beyond opening statement.
16
THE COURT: That is overruled.
17
MR. MALDONADO: We will also ask you at the close of
18
the evidence whether his rights to speak up as a citizen were
19
violated. We anticipate that this is the evidence that you
20
will hear and we ask that you listen closely and that at the
21
end of the day return a verdict in his favor. Thank you, Your
22
Honor.
23
24
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Ralls.
25
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
78
ladies and gentlemen, and again thank you for your service
here today and as the Judge point out, I think it will be a
very brief trial. We obviously think the evidence is going to
show, is going to be a lot different than what you just heard
from plaintiff's counsel. Officer Richter is going to testify
that he was at the cutout in front of Fuddrucker's on Losoya
right before you get to Commerce Street, which is a very busy
intersection with pedestrian and vehicular traffic and that he
saw Mr. Rynearson pass in the right hand lane and then turn
10
into the left-hand lane without signaling a lane change. That
11
is important because it is it is important to make a lane --
12
to signal a lane change there because that is a busy
13
intersection with pedestrian and advocate dollar traffic. It
14
goes through Commerce, then goes on around to market street.
15
Having seen that he failed to made signal a lane change, offer
16
Richter followed Mr. Rynearson and when he got through the
17
busy parts of the intersection he turned on his overhead
18
lights to signal to Mr. Rynearson to pull over. Mr. Rynearson
19
did pull over. Officer Richter, the evidence will show, at
20
that point had not made a decision whether to simply give him
21
a verbal warning, a written warning, a ticket, or not that he,
22
not that it really factored into his decision at that point,
23
but or he could have at that point, because he had witnessed a
24
violation of the law, could just simply make an arrest, walk
25
up and make an arrest but he didn't do that. He approached

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
79
the vehicle. He tried to introduce himself. When he got
there, Mr. Rynearson was, did have his window down but he was
holding his license and his insurance over to the right, in
his right hand, and officer Richter asked him for his -- for
his license and insurance. At that point, Mr. Rynearson
started just in saying you are violating my constitutional
rights. Officer Richter again asked him for his license and
insurance. He again said you are just violating my
constitutional rights and failed to -- he refused basically to
10
five officer Richter his license and insurance. Which was a
11
very bizarre situation, but it was clear to officer Richter
12
that he was not going to comply and give him his license and
13
insurance. Officer Richter asked him again for his license
14
and insurance. He still refused to give it to him and officer
15
Richter told him if you don't give it to me you are going to
16
be arrested. At that point, he did start to give it to him,
17
officer Richter at that point exercised his discretion to go
18
ahead and arrest him for violation of the traffic law, which
19
he, I think the Judge will instruct you, he is entitled to do.
20
When he got officer -- when Mr. Rynearson got out of the car
21
he was handcuffed, he was placed into the backseat of the
22
patrol car and at that point, he asked officer Richter to
23
retrieve his wallet from his car, which officer Richter did,
24
and when offer Richter brought it to him he said what am I
25
looking for, you are looking for my concealed handgun permit

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
80
and it turned out that Mr. Rynearson had a loaded
nine-millimeter hand fun in his cargo shorts pocket at the
time. So that is -- I think the evidence is going to show,
that is bizarre that he did not tell officer Richterer,
tricker that at that he had a hand fun with him as he was
being taken out of the car as he was being handcuffed, as he
was being put in the patrol car. So the evidence is going to
show that Mr. Rynearson had a bad, for whatever reason, had a
seriously bad attitude about police officers from the moment
10
that he encountered officer Richter. Officer Richter then on
11
the way to the -- Mr. Rynearson, rather, on the way to the
12
jail, to the magistrate's office, actually, he was never
13
booked into jail, on the way to the magistrate's office,
14
officer -- I am sorry, Mr. Rynearson told officer Richter
15
words to the effect that he was military and had fought in
16
wars and killed people and that officer Richter better watch
17
out while violating constitutional rights. That is what
18
officer Richter was dealing with that day when he walked up to
19
the car. He could have simply, if Mr. Rynearson had simply
20
handed him his driver's license and his insurance as requested
21
and officer Richter could not identify the evidence will show
22
he could not identify him, Mr. Rynearson, from the driver's
23
license, because of the way that Mr. Rynearson was holding it
24
away from him. And he is entitled, number one, to have that
25
identification and to have the license and insurance. So it

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
81
was a very bizarre situation. Mr. Rynearson did spend we
think about five hours at the magistrate's office and then
signed some paperwork and was let go and that was pretty much
the end of the story for this. So we believe that officer
Richter at all times exercised good faith in dealing with
Mr. Rynearson. He gave him several opportunities to hand him
his license and his insurance. Mr. Rynearson instead just
said you are violating my constitutional rights after
repeated, him repeatedly saying that and officer Richter not
10
getting any cooperation and aware of the fact that he was
11
never going to get any cooperation decided to arrest him. And
12
we believe that it was a valid arrest. It was brought on by
13
the actions of Mr. Rynearson in failing to comply with, as a
14
major in the Air Force with a lawful order to provide the
15
license and insurance and we believe that if you listen to the
16
testimony that at the end, at the close of this evidence that
17
you will return a verdict in favor of officer Richter. Thank
18
you.
19
20
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, so these are
21
opening statements, what both lawyers have said is not any
22
evidence. We are going to take a lunch break and when we
23
return from lunch, then you will start hearing the evidence in
24
the case. If you decide to have lunch together, do not
25
discuss this case. Don't discuss the opening remarks, because

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
82
that wasn't evidence. And you are not to discuss this case
until you hear all the evidence and then you can all start
deliberating. Please remember my lengthy instructions about
the Internet and smart phones. Don't do any outside research.
If you want to call your family members or your workplace and
just say I did get pick for a jury, just tell them it is a
short civil case, please don't give any description. It is
not so much I am worried about what you are going to say. I
am more worried about what they may tell you. So just give --
10
it is a simple short -- or a simple description it is a short
11
civil case. I should hopefully be back to work on Wednesday
12
or Thursday and keep it short and simple. I am going to
13
introduce you to the jury deliberation room. Mr. Aguilar will
14
give you an indication of how to get back into the building.
15
And where you might be able to grab a place for lunch. Let's
16
return right at 1:00 o'clock. All rise for the jury.
17
THE COURT: Do we need to take up anything.
18
19
MR. RALLS: I don't think so.
20
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, what time are we coming
21
back.
22
23
THE COURT: We are starting right at 1:00. Test

test.
24
(Lunch recess.)
25
(Lunch recess.) test test if you can test test

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
83
Fukushima test strokes. Practice strokes. If you can.
THE COURT: Please be seated. Good afternoon.
Hopefully everybody had a good lunch and with that, we will
begin hearing the evidence in this case. Mr. Maldonado, your
first witness.
6
7
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. We

call Richard Rynearson to the stand, Your Honor.
(Oath administered to the witness.)
10
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
11
DIRECT EXAMINATION
12
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
13
DIRECT EXAMINATION
14
BY MR. MALDONADO:
15
Q. Mr. Rynearson, can you state your name for the record?
16
A. Sir, my name is Richard Lee Rynearson the third.
17
Q. And where do you work?
18
A. I am in the Air Force. I am an instructor pilot at
19
Pensacola, currently NES.
20
Q. Thank you and are you enlisted or are you an officer?
21
A. I am an officer.
22
Q. And what is your rank?
23
A. I am a major.
24
Q. And could you give us a sense of your employment history
25
or your service with the Air Force?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
84
A. Okay. Well, it started off with my military brat, my
father retired after 30 years in the military so I always
wanted to go and become a pilot one day. So I went to college
and did the ROTC program. And then I was commissioned upon
getting my degree. I went then to Del Rio, Texas as a student
pilot and for about a year I was a student until I not my
wings, got my wings. From there I then moved to Abilene,
Texas and spent about three years there flying C-130 aircraft
and then 9/11 happened. So two days after 9/11 I volunteered
10
to go to special operations and fly the A C-130 gunship attack
11
aircraft. So I moved there, I spent five years there. Did
12
eight deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan with special
13
operations. Following that, I went back to Laughlin Air Force
14
Base then this time as instructor pilot teaching and difficult
15
id that for three years.
16
Q. And that brings you to sort of the date of this incident,
17
right.
18
Q. So you were in Laughlin Air Force Base when the facts
19
relating to this case came up?
20
A. That is correct, sir.
21
Q. And so back in 2009, again, what were you doing in
22
Laughlin Air Force Base?
23
A. I was a T six instructor pilot, so we would take brand-new
24
officers who had just graduated from the Air Force academy or
25
some of the, some other college and we would take them in the
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
85
T six and teach them the basics of flying, low level,
formation, aerobatics and instrument flight procedures.
Q. And today, how many years in the service have you
committed?
A. I have a little over 19 years.
Q. And when you were assigneds or when you were sent to
Laughlin Air Force Base in 2000, when you were there in 2009
did you request that assignment?
A. Yes, sir, it was my first choice.
10
Q. And then I am going to bring you back to the
11
September 2009, the incident in this case is September 7,
12
2009, correct?
13
A. Yes, sir.
14
Q. And what were you doing in San Antonio? Or I can't are
15
with you September 7, 2009?
16
A. I was in San Antonio.
17
Q. And what were you doing here?
18
A. I was I had maintained an apartment in downtown San
19
Antonio, in addition to a really cheap apartment that I had in
20
Del Rio, so I was sleeping I would sleep in Del Rio in this
21
cheaper apartment but every weekend I spent in San Antonio.
22
Q. And how did you get back from travel between Del Rio and
23
San Antonio?
24
A. In my vehicle.
25
Q. And what kind of car did you have?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
86
A. It is a Mitsubishi eclipse.
Q. And what kind of license plates did your Mitsubishi have?
A. At that time, it had Florida tags.
Q. And why is that?
A. My previous assignment us at Herbert field in Florida and
my tags hadn't expired so I just continued to use those tags.
Q. So your license plates were current?
A. Yes.
Q. So what happened on September 7, 2009?
10
A. Well,.
11
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to object as to
12
the narrative, asking for a narrative response and ask it be
13
question and answer.
14
15
THE WITNESS: Okay. On that night, as I did pretty
16
much every Sunday of every weekend, I departed the Houston
17
street parking garage, which was attached to my building and I
18
made a left there on college street and proceeded through a
19
couple of intersections until I stopped at Losoya Street at a
20
stop sign. I signaled a right turn and turned into the right
21
most lane of Losoya, I then, knowing I had to make a left to
22
come to get to Market Street turned on my turn signal to the
23
left.
24
Q. Let me ask you something, what time of day was this?
25
A. This was about, right around 6:00 p.m.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
87
Q. And why were you leaving then? What why were you driving
then?
A. Well, I was trying maximize my time in San Antonio, but I
still have to get back to Del Rio in time to go to sleep so I
have enough crew rest to be legal to fly the next day.
Q. Okay. So I am sorry to interrupt you so you had made a
right on Losoya, you had gotten on the right-hand lane,
correct?
A. Yes, sir.
10
Q. And so then what happened?
11
A. So I knew I had to get into the left lane, so I used my
12
blinker and I signalled to the left and made a left change,
13
left lane change, and then kept proceeding. The I made it
14
past Commerce into where there is the turn, there is lake a
15
roundabout area like a sculpture, and it turns into Market,
16
and about halfway around in that turn I looked up and noticed
17
that there was a police car behind me with its lights on.
18
Q. And let me ask you something. You said that you put your
19
turn signal when you turned right from college on to Losoya,
20
correct?
21
A. Yes, sir.
22
Q. And you said that you put on your signal light to change
23
lanes from the right lane to the left lane on Losoya driving
24
south, correct?
25
A. Yes, sir.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
88
Q. I mean, why are you so certain that in fact you put on
your turn signal?
A. Well, I can remember it, and the -- one thing, I am very
procedurally driven. So if I can explain as an instructor
pilot and as an Air Force pa pilot, the skill set from the one
goes to the other, so for example, we fly 350, 400 miles per
hour, control pressures are very extensive so if you are not
looking at some -- your altitude every couple of seconds you
could be 100, 200 feet off, in addition to that, you have to
10
make sure your air speed is good if you are flying in
11
formation you have to make sure your wing man is in the
12
correction correct position you have navigation aids you need
13
to use, power settingsing ops checks all these things so when
14
we call head on a swivel, looking here, hub and spoke, look
15
over here to make sure this is good have a situational
16
awareness thing and procedural thing that transfers to driving
17
because it is a dynamic situation, you moving, so you are
18
thinking ahead in the jet, or when you are driving you are
19
thinking ahead what you are going to do, just like I know I am
20
going to be turning up there, turn signal, lane change.
21
Q. Let me ask you something?
22
23
THE COURT: One second, Mr. Rynearson you may want

to slow down just a tad.
24
Okay.
25
My court reporter is having trouble catching up with

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
89
you.
THE WITNESS: All right.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. I am just curious to know, do all pilots like your
situation, are they also trainers?
A. No, sir.
Q. And before we continue, in terms of your service, have you
been recognized due to your service?
10
A. Yes, sir. I have several commendation medals, as with us
11
discussed previously.
12
Q. Sure. So you said you were -- you make -- you were making
13
a left on Market Street when you saw police car behind you
14
with their lights on, correct?
15
A. Yes.
16
Q. Had you seen that car before?
17
A. No.
18
Q. Was someone else with you?
19
A. No.
20
Q. So once you saw the signal lights, how do you know it was
21
for you -- about you -- that you were the one that needed to
22
stop?
23
A. There was -- there was no other vehicle between me and the
24
police officer, and then as we turned on to Market Street it
25
was very apparent, because the -- the police officer pulled up

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
90
right next to me.
Q. So I always know when I I have been stopped by a police
because I am usually speeding, did you know why you had been
stopped?
A. I did not know. I, at that point I assumed it was because
I had a broken taillight or someone one of those things that I
couldn't control but didn't know. I assume there was a, I
assumed there was a lawful reason for the stop other than my
driving.
10
Q. You didn't think you were speeding?
11
A. No, I wasn't speeding.
12
Q. You don't think you had failed to put on your signal?
13
A. No, I didn't fail to do that.
14
Q. So then you come to a stop. What happened next?
15
A. So, yeah.
16
Q. Let me stop. Where did you come to a stop?
17
A. I pulled into the Gonzalez convention center, so there is
18
a parking area there. I you would into that, and then the
19
police officer, officer Richter pulled in behind me.
20
Q. Okay. And then so officer Richter is behind you. You are
21
inside -- did you exit your Kata point?
22
A. No.
23
Q. What did you?
24
A. What did you do.
25
A. I turned off the car, I got my wallet out, took my
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
91
driver's license out of it, I reached up to my advisor and
grabbed my wad of insurance cards and registration, had those
in my hand, rolled down my window, as he was approaching the
car.
Q. So you knew the drill that your driver's license and the
officer would be asking for your driver's license and proof of
insurance?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so there I guess at some point, officer Richter did
10
approach the window on your side of the car?
11
A. Yes, sir.
12
Q. And what happened next?
13
A. He approached the window and said, license and insurance.
14
Q. And did he say anything else after that?
15
A. No, he did not.
16
Q. What did you say?
17
A. I said, why did you pull me over? And he said, because
18
you have an out of stateliness plate and I just want to make
19
sure you have a driver's license.
20
Q. And what were you doing with your -- with your driver's
21
license and your proof of insurance while you are talking with
22
officer Richter?
23
A. Well, I have them here, and I really wasn't doing anything
24
once we began talking, because it was a conversation, but they
25
were right here. And just stayed right here.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
92
Q. So?
A. It was a very quick conversation. So it was very fast.
Probably within I mean, ten seconds, top.
Q. So you asked him after he asked you for the drivers and
your proof of insurance you asked him why did you stop me,
yes?
A. And.
A. Yes.
Q. And what did he say again?
10
A. Because you have an out of stateliness plate and I just
11
want to make sure you have a driver's license.
12
Q. And what did you say then?
13
A. I said, confirm you just pulled me over without cause.
14
Q. And word confirm is that what you said?
15
A. That's what I said, confirm.
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. You didn't say you violated my constitutional rights?
18
A. No, I did not say that.
19
Q. And what did officer Richter say at that point?
20
A. He said get out of the vehicle.
21
Q. And what did you say then?
22
A. I said, confirm you are now ordering me out of my vehicle
23
without cause.
24
Q. And what did he say?
25
A. He said, yes, get out of the vehicle.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
93
Q. And at that point, what are you doing with your driver's
license and your proof of insurance?
A. They are still in my hand right here.
Q. And let me ask you something. Before you asked officer
Richter why did you stop me, that was his demeanor?
A. Before I asked him he was stern, I would say stern, very
stern and to the point.
Q. Okay. And I mean you are in the military I am sure that
did not that you are sort of used to that?
10
A. Yeah, that wasn't such a big deal.
11
Q. But once you asked him the question why did you stop me?
12
What was his demeanor or reaction?
13
A. His face got red, he -- he was yelling, he was irate after
14
that, I mean, I had just asked him or challenged him and
15
pointed out that he had done something wrong and he didn't --
16
he did not appreciate it.
17
Q. So from the moment that he asked you for -- from the
18
moment he appeared on your window and asked you for your
19
driver's license and proof of insurance, to the moment that
20
you were ordered out of the car, how long did that take?
21
A. Ten seconds tops.
22
Q. Are you sure he didn't ask you several times, give me your
23
driver's license and proof of insurance?
24
A. I am absolutely positive.
25
Q. Did he threaten you, I am going to arrest you if you

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
94
tonight give me your driver's license and proof of insurance?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did you ever say to him, I am hot giving you anything
until you answer my questions?
A. No, I never said that.
Q. Did you curse at him?
A. I did not.
Q. So did you exit the vehicle?
A. I did.
10
Q. And what happened next?
11
A. I opened up the door. As I was opening up the door he
12
kind of took a step back and kind of not into, looked kind of
13
like a football pose and put his right hand on what I assume
14
was his Taser, just kind of there, as I stepped out of the
15
vehicle, he came forward again, took the documents out of my
16
right hand and then told me to turn around and face my
17
vehicle.
18
Q. And did you do that?
19
A. I did.
20
Q. Did you resist turning?
21
A. No.
22
Q. Once you turned around, did he tell you put your hands
23
over your head or spread them or anything like that?
24
A. No.
25
Q. What happened next?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
95
A. He immediately grabbed my arms which are already at my
sides and threw handcuffs on them.
Q. Okay. And then did he say anything or did you say
anything?
A. I didn't say anything, but he did say, you do know that I
am a cop, right?
Q. And what did you say?
A. You do know that I am an American citizen.
Q. And what was his response?
10
A. Yeah, I am really impressed.
11
Q. And how long did he keep you by your car on the street or
12
on the convention way?
13
A. Not long after he had arrested me, probably it took ten
14
seconds, 15 seconds to walk me back to his car.
15
Q. And besides that conversation of you know I am a cop, I am
16
an -- you know I am an American citizen did you have any other
17
conversation while handcuffed by your car?
18
A. Not -- well, by the car as we are unwalking back, several
19
times at least two times he said, why are you being so
20
aggressive? And I said I am not. And which at the time I was
21
like, well who is he talking to? It is like what is this?
22
This seemed very strange, we are the only two people here.
23
Which kind of made me think that perhaps he had been recording
24
audio on his Taser, but those are the only two things he said,
25
why are you being aggression receive and I told him I am not.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
96
Q. And before he put you -- did he put you in the car vehicle
-- in the police vehicle?
A. He did, in the backseat.
Q. And before he put you in the police vehicle, did he pat
you down?
A. No.
Q. You were carrying a weapon, weren't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you licensed?
10
A. Yes, sir.
11
Q. Why were you carrying a weapon?
12
A. It is in my constitutional right and I believe that we can
13
strengthen our rights by exercising our rights and given my
14
profession, we are targeted here at home, like the Chattanooga
15
attacks demonstrate, so should I need to defend myself or my
16
family, I would like to exercise my constitutional rights.
17
Q. And was your -- you had a permit, correct?
18
A. Yes, sir.
19
Q. Was it valid?
20
A. Yes, sir.
21
Q. Was it unexpired?
22
A. It was unspider, yes.
23
Q. And he didn't pat you down?
24
A. That is correct, he did not.
25
Q. (Unexpired).
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
97
Q. So you are now inside the vehicle, what happened?
A. Okay. So he put me in the vehicle and then he went to my
vehicle. He spent a couple of minutes inside my vehicle. I
am not sure what he was doing there, and then he came back.
Q. And did he come back and stand outside the car or did he
--
A. No.
Q. -- come inside. He not into his driver's side car.
Q. And what happened?
10
A. I asked him, why are you arresting me? And he said, for
11
failing to saying natural a lane change on Losoya.
12
Q. So that's the first time you heard about the failing to
13
put on your turn signal?
14
A. That is correct, yes, sir.
15
Q. And what did you say?
16
A. I said you know what you are doing is wrong. And he said,
17
you already admitted to failing to signal or something along
18
those lines, which again led me to believe that he was
19
recording or something, because it was just very mysterious.
20
Q. He was state ago fact about what you had admitted?
21
A. Yes. Which obviously I didn't do that and we both know
22
that so --
23
24
25
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to object it is

nonresponsive to -THE COURT: That is sustained.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
98
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. So then what happened next?
A. After that, then he spent some time filling out some
paperwork, I couldn't see what it was. Up front. But then
about five minutes or so later, he says, he shows a citation
and he says, I am going to give cow one chance, you either
sign the citation or you can spend the night in jail, it is
your choice.
Q. And what did you say in response?
10
A. I said, I don't remember not using my signal but, so I
11
will sign your citation, but I remain concerned because when I
12
asked you way you pulled me over, you said it was because I
13
had an out of state tag and you wanted to see if I had a
14
driver's license.
15
Q. And what was his reaction to that?
16
A. He just said that's it you are going to jail and took away
17
the citation and I never saw it, never held it, never had a
18
chance to sign it.
19
Q. Did you immediately drive back to the magistrate's office
20
or the jail?
21
A. No. At that point, he called the tow truck and we waited
22
for the tow truck to arrive.
23
Q. And then what happened?
24
A. After he called the tow truck, I asked him, because I knew
25
at that point I was going to jail, I asked him, if he would go

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
99
into my car and retrieve my wallet? And did he agree to do
that.
A. He did.
Q. And did he bring you your wallet?
A. He did.
Q. And did you and officer Richter have a conversation about
the wallet?
A. Well, when he brought, he came back with my wallet he said
is there anything I am looking for in here specifically and he
10
said yes, my conceal carry permit.
11
Q. And what was his response to that?
12
A. He said are you carrying right now and I said yes I have a
13
loaded nine-millimeter in my pocket and he said why didn't you
14
give me the concealed carry permit when I first came up. I
15
said you arrested me too fast there was. Any time. And he
16
said well that is another thing I have got you on.
17
Q. And, 15, how long did it take between the exchange in the
18
car and when he asked you to exit the car?
19
A. In the very beginning?
20
Q. Yes.
21
A. Ten seconds tops.
22
Q. And at that point, did he remove the gun from you?
23
A. He did not.
24
Q. What happened next?
25
A. The tow truck arrived, took away the vehicle, and we

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
100
started to drive towards the magistrate's office, so it, we
took a right on Market Street, which I believe is one-way
street. Not long after we made that turn on to Market Street,
there was a vehicle coming at -- towards us driving the wrong
way on Market Street. Officer Richter, you know, made some
sort of a disparaging remark about the driver, but stopped the
lanes of traffic with the driver and then yelled at the driver
and the trough' did a 180 and went the correct way.
Q. He didn't arrest the driver?
10
A. He didn't arrest the driver.
11
Q. Did you and officer Richter have anymore conversations on
12
the way to the jail? It is actually magistrate office but
13
jail, magistrate?
14
A. It was pretty quiet, it was quiet, I was, after that I was
15
just in shock. Number one, I just had been arrested. Number
16
2, I just saw him whip out when someone is driving the wrong
17
way and it was a very strange night.
18
MR. RALLS: Nonresponsive, Your Honor.
19
THE COURT: That is sustained.
20
BY MR. MALDONADO:
21
Q. Can you tell us as you are driving to the magistrate
22
office, did you and officer Richter have another conversation?
23
A. Yes. As we got closer to the magistrate's office, I --
24
Q. Actually, I will withdraw that question. What were you
25
thinking on your way to the magistrate's office?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
101
A. What I was thinking was, I mean, I was in shock. I
couldn't believe that this had transpired. I was just on my
way from a happy weekend in San Antonio, driving home, having
done nothing wrong, and out of the blue I get stopped, lied to
and arrested and now I am going to jail. So it was just a
very shocking experience for me, so I reflected on that in the
vehicle.
Q. Did you then have a conversation with officer Richter?
A. As we got towards the magistrate I just said I want you to
10
know that I am in the military, I have been in combat, I have
11
killed people, I have shot been shot a at and I have seen far
12
better men than you die to protect the Constitution you just
13
violated.
14
Q. Did you mean to threaten him by saying that?
15
A. No.
16
Q. What did you -- what was your intention what was your
17
intention in saying that to him?
18
A. I wanted to shame him. I wanted him to know that even if
19
-- acting like that is something that can be done.
20
MR. RALLS: Object to relevance, Your Honor.
21
22
THE WITNESS: Even if that might be casual thing for
23
him, that, you know, violating my rights and taking my person
24
like that, and then lying about it, for whatever reason, he
25
decided to do that, that that was -- you know, that is not

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
102
1
2
right.
THE COURT: Okay now we need to go to question and
answer.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. And did officer Richter respond to your statement?
A. He did. He said do you think you are the only person who
has been in the military or killed somebody?
Q. And did you say anything in response.?
A. I said you don't get it.
10
Q. What did you mean by that?
11
A. That what I attempted, maybe poorly, to tell him was that
12
the rights that he violates so casual he are defended by
13
people, you know, who sacrifice a great deal and I just wanted
14
him to know that.
15
Q. So you arrive at the magistrate office. What happens
16
next?
17
A. At that point, he got me out of the vehicle, and disarmed
18
me.
19
Q. Where were you carrying the weapon?
20
A. In my right cargo shorts pocket.
21
Q. Did you at any point resist while you were being taken out
22
of the police car?
23
A. No.
24
Q. Did you at any point curse to officer Richterer once you
25
arrived at the magistrate's office?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
103
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you make any threatening motion that would have given
reason to officer Richter to to believe that he should fear
for his person?
A. No, sir.
Q. So I imagine you were walked into the magistrate's office?
A. Yes.
A. He told me that after processing in the morning I would be
10
able to get my property back and then he led me into there and
11
then he left.
12
Q. And so once you are in there, what happens for people who
13
are arrested and taken there?
14
A. There was a lady by a window that had some Plexiglas or
15
some sort of glass on it and she processed me and some other
16
people. She put handcuffs back on us. She took our -- you
17
know, our belongings and I guess inventory did, and then took
18
us to a jail cell. So this may be five seconds walk away, you
19
can see it, it is line of sight where from where she was at
20
and she just opened up a jail cell and put me in there and
21
removed the handcuffs and then that was it.
22
Q. How many people were in the cell?
23
A. I remember six people, being in there, including one guy
24
who was vomiting like every hour.
25
Q. So approximately at what time were you pulled -- strike

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
104
that. Approximately at what time on September 7, 20mine was
your car stopped on Market Street?
A. Some time after like 6:00 p.m. is when he stopped me.
Q. And what, and at what time did you arrive at the jail,
magistrate's office?
A. That would have been probably closer to 7:00, maybe even a
little after 7:00 p.m., probably 7:15 p.m. I would guess but I
am not quite positive.
Q. And did there come a time that you were able to get out of
10
the jail?
11
A. Yes. At 10:30ish, the same lady who had processed us or
12
processed me into there came to the jail cell, put handcuffs
13
on me, and then led me back to her station and then brought
14
out a fodder and she told me that I had been arrested for
15
failing to sign the citation and I could bond out or I would
16
be transferred to the county jail so at that.
17
Q. What you were told or what you heard is you were arrested
18
for fail to sign the citation?
19
A. Yes. That's what she said.
20
Q. How many times were you offered the opportunity to sign
21
the citation?
22
A. Well, he gave me only that one, just like he said I will
23
give you one chance, but he never actually gave me that
24
chance.
25
Q. Well did you refuse to sign?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
105
A. No, I did not. I told him expressly that I would sign.
Q. And so then once the lady at the magistrate's office
explained to you the process, what did you do?
A. I told her that I would bond, I would like to bond out, I
think I signed something, and then she took me back to the
cell for another couple of hours. So --
Q. And did there come a time when you were finally able to
walk out of the jail?
A. Yes. I think shortly after midnight. Then they came and
10
got me again, allowed me to go outside, withdraw a couple of
11
hundred dollars from the ATM machine to pay my bond am then
12
they released me.
13
Q. Had you ever -- Thad you ever, prior to this incident, had
14
you ever been arrested and put in jail before?
15
A. Yes, one time.
16
Q. When was that?
17
A. That was in 19 a nine -- 1998 or 1999.
18
Q. And how long were you in jail?
19
A. Overnight.
20
Q. And so once -- you have paid the bond, you are talk
21
walking out of the jail, what did you do?
22
A. I ordered a cab, a cab took me to the impound lot, I paid
23
to have my car released to me and then from there, I couldn't
24
go really drive to work, because my -- I wouldn't be hell to
25
fly the next day because of the sleep and everything, so I

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
106
just went back to my apartment and tried to go to sleep for a
couple of hours until prop, the property room opened up so I
could go back and retrieve my property from the magistrate's
office.
Q. And is the property your gun or some other property.
Right. I had a backpack with like a computer in it, laptop.
And then my weapon.
Q. So you took a cab to the impound, what did that cost you?
A. I think it was $25, yes.
10
Q. And at the impound was it open at that hour?
11
A. It was.
12
Q. And how much did you pay to get your car out?
13
A. If I remember correctly, it was $130ish.
14
Q. Did you get up early that same day on the eighth and did
15
you retrieve your gun? And backpack?
16
A. I went back there. They gave me my backpack, but they
17
would not give me my bun back. They said my conceal carry
18
permit was not sufficient. They said that instead I needed to
19
drive across town to homicide and have them fill out some
20
paperwork and then I would have to provide that paperwork back
21
to them for them to release my gun back to me, so I did that.
22
I drove and attempted to do that, waited in line as homicide
23
but when when I was seen they told me it would take five to
24
seven.
25
MR. RALLS: I object as nonresponsive and hearsay.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
107
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. Did you get your gun that morning. No.
Q. Did you have -- did you ever go back and get your gun?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I was told that by homicide people.
MR. RALLS: Again, Your Honor, objection to hearsay.
10
BY MR. MALDONADO:
11
Q. Without telling us what other people told you why didn't
12
you get your gun?
13
A. Because my understanding was that it would take me at
14
least five to seven days before the homicide department would
15
get their own arrest report and then be able to fill out the
16
paperwork that would then allow the property people to give me
17
back my weapon. In addition to the delay, I believe they were
18
only open on the weekdays.
19
MR. RALLS: Object to nonresponsive, Your Honor.
20
21
THE WITNESS: They were only open on the weekdays
22
and I lived three hours away in Del Rio, for me to come back I
23
would have to take leave from my, you know, vacation time,
24
essentially, in order to go back to Laughlin, to then stand in
25
line, to then potentially have this same -- I was just over

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
108
it.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. Okay. Remembering, you were here when Mr. Ralls did his
opening statement, correct, you were present here?
A. Where.
Q. In is really a bizarre situation, Mr. Rynearson. How do
you explain that you ended up getting arrested?
A. I agree that it is a bizarre situation. My explanation of
how I got arrested was that some police officer for some
10
reason chose to pull me over and then he arrested me when I
11
told him that what he had done was wrong. You can't pull me
12
over if I vice president broken a law, just to see if I have a
13
driver's license. That's unlawful. I understood that to be
14
the case.
15
MR. RALLS: I am going to object as to the witness
16
testifying as to what the law is, Your Honor.
17
18
BY MR. MALDONADO:
19
Q. Mr. Rynearson, we are here today, why are we here today on
20
a lawsuit about a citation?
21
A. Right. And the reason we are here today is because --
22
23
MR. RALLS: Objection object to the relevance, Your

Honor.
24
25
THE WITNESS: Is because -- there are a couple of
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
109
layers to this, but number one, one of the most basic, I was
wronged, I was wronged by this cop and this is the system that
is set up for accountability. And I understand that a lot of
people have heard it several times why would you do this? I
mean, why would you spend all that time and effort and money
to seek this, because -- and the reason is because what he did
was really wrong, and it affected me, obviously.
Q. But, you know,.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
10
Q. But, you know, let's take that how it affected you you are
11
military so you are fairly familiar with handcuffs, right?
12
A. I had some survival training that, where we dealt with
13
handcuffs.
14
Q. Okay. So they have been on you before?
15
A. Correct.
16
Q. So you have had handcuffs before, how was this situation
17
any different?
18
A. This is far different. He -- you know, he pulls me over
19
out of the blue and basically he yanks me out of my car and
20
then puts handcuffs on me, then lies, detains me, and rocks,
21
you know, my personal life and my professional life. I mean,
22
this had a lot of ramifications, this was not just a oh just
23
go spend some time in the jail and then everything is
24
hunky-dory. You know, this goes back to my, to my commanders,
25
my reputation.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
110
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to object as this
violates the basically, it is irrelevant, it goes beyond the
motions, pretrial motions, Your Honor.
4
5
6
THE COURT: Not at this point. That's overruled but

coming close, careful.
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor, I understand.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. Did you have to report this?
A. I did.
10
Q. Were you required to report this?
11
A. Yes.
12
Q. Did this result in some sort of sanction against you?
13
A. I was reprimanded, there was a reprimand placed in my
14
record.
15
Q. Okay. And did it affect you in other ways?
16
A. I it did. Just to try to explain why this is important to
17
me, how it affected me. You know, I can explain how it
18
affected me. Maybe not perhaps exactly why. But, you know,
19
before this, I would travel in my country, that I have worked
20
and, you know, defended with this anticipation that the people
21
that I -- that I pay to protect me are doing so, you know, or
22
at least are not, you know, terrorizing me. After this
23
happened to me, it just affected my sense of security, driving
24
down the road. If you see a police officer, all of a sudden I
25
lose a breath, you know, like I feel vulnerable, like I can

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
111
just be victim needed at any time and I can't even control the
ramifications that is going to have in my life. And so, yeah,
it was -- it was a traumatic experience.
Q. I mean, some pokes may say, look, this is simply a traffic
ticket. Take the damned ticket and move on?
A. Right. Yeah.
Q. What do you say to that?
A. So beyond that, just the basic wrong, it is my opinion
check that, you know, our constitutional rights are very
10
valuable. You know, we all stand on the shoulder of giants,
11
so there are people who sacrificed, some of them in uniform
12
and some of them not in uniform, you know, freedom riders,
13
Martin Luther King, people who had cops with batons and dogs
14
and the water hoses, people stood up and risked themselves to
15
protect our rights, and I think it is important and I think it
16
is our obligation for all of us to when put in this position,
17
to also take a stand, even if it is inconvenient, I know we
18
have jobs, I know that, you know, we think, okay, you know, we
19
will just pay you and whatever, but when we do that, it only
20
gets worse and beyond that, you know, I have seen guys Diane
21
to protect our country, so -- and that is hard to explain to
22
someone who maybe only deals with that in a Broadway and
23
hasn't, you know, questioned, you know, what was that
24
sacrifice worth? And -- but I have, and it hurts to see that
25
betrayal of our values and for me, I have seen people do -ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
112
risk a lot more and give a lot more, so I can't, for the sake
of convenience pass up an easy opportunity to do the right
thing to defend the station.
MR. MALDONADO: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any cross?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. RALLS:
Q. (to defend this nation)
10
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
11
CROSS EXAMINATION
12
BY MR. RALLS:
13
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Rynearson.
14
A. Yes, sir.
15
Q. Mr. Rynearson, I would like to sort of start, go back to
16
the beginning. How long were you stationed in Del Rio prior
17
to September 7, 2009?
18
A. I believe -- I believe that was about two years, roughly.
19
Q. Okay. So did you have an apartment in San Antonio for
20
that entire two years?
21
A. No, sir. Not the whole time.
22
Q. How long prior to the September 7, 20mine did you have an
23
apartment in San Antonio?
24
A. I would -- I think probably a year, maybe a year and a
25
half.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
113
Q. And would you come to San Antonio every weekend when you
had that apartment?
A. Yes, sir. I think -- I think maybe for three years I
might have spent four or five weekends total in Del Rio. And
the republicans were here in San Antonio.
Q. And during that year, were you driving the same car that
you were driving on September 7, 2009?
A. During -- yes, up to this event.
Q. Correct?
10
A. Was it the same car?
11
Q. Yes, sir.
12
Q. Okay. So for 50, 48, 50 weeks prior to this event you had
13
driven your Mitsubishi with the Florida license plates through
14
San Antonio, correct?
15
A. Yes, sir.
16
Q. Never been pulled over for having Florida license plates,
17
did you?
18
A. No, sir.
19
Q. You -- you are aware of the fact that the City of San
20
Antonio is a military town, correct?
21
A. Yes, sir.
22
Q. And has lots of people without a state license, out of
23
stateliness plates, correct?
24
A. Yes, sir.
25
Q. And it is also a convention town. You are aware of that,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
114
right?
A. Where.
Q. And has a lot of people without of stateliness plates,
correct?
A. I am not as familiar with the convention stuff but I would
agree that would make sense, yes, sir.
Q. And the same with regard to tourists, would you agree with
that?
A. Yes, sir.
10
Q. So there are lots of -- I mean, pretty clear that there
11
are a lot of people driving around downtown San Antonio
12
without a out of stateliness plates, rights?
13
A. Yes, sir. That makes sense.
14
Q. Okay. And you -- when you would come to San Antonio,
15
would you drive around San Antonio in your car with your out
16
of stateliness plate?
17
A. Certainly, sir, if I was going somewhere, I would.
18
Q. All right. So cow probably logged a lot of miles in San
19
Antonio with your out of stateliness plates without being
20
pulled over, correct?
21
A. Certainly some miles, yes, sir.
22
Q. Okay. Let me ask you this. You have had other traffic
23
tickets in the past, right?
24
A. I have, sir.
25
Q. For what?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
115
A. I believe all of them have been speeding, I can't remember
anything other than speeding.
Q. And you have had speeding tickets since you have been in
the Air Force?
A. Since I have been in the Air Force?
Q. Correct.
A. For -- yes. Yes, sir. I have.
Q. Okay.
A. Four or five, maybe.
10
Q. And I am sorry?
11
A. I am just estimating them.
12
Q. Okay. And the speeding tickets you have had while you
13
were in the Air Force that's while you were a pilot, right?
14
A. Yes, sir. Either a pilot or training to be a pilot.
15
Q. And so you weren't particularly integrating your pilot
16
training with your driving on those particular occasions,
17
correct?
18
A. On those occasions, sir, I was speeding. On purpose.
19
Q. Okay. All right. So let's go to -- let's go ahead go to
20
September 7, 2009. You say that you were driving down Losoya
21
street going south toward Commerce Street, correct?
22
A. Losoya going south on Commerce, yes, sir.
23
Q. And you had been through that intersection on a number of
24
occasions before September 7, true?
25
A. Yes, sir.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
116
Q. And you knew that there was a Fuddrucker's right there on
the left-hand side of the corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And I think maybe a McDonald's right there on the
left-hand side of the corner?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. A lot of pedestrian traffic through there, right?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Yes?
10
A. Yes, sir.
11
Q. And a lot of vehicular traffic through there also,
12
correct?
13
A. Yes, sir.
14
Q. At Commerce? And do you remember whether there is a
15
cutout in front of the Fuddrucker's on Losoya street heading
16
south?
17
A. I don't remember. I do know there are some cutouts, I
18
remember the one that is by the hotel, a little further back,
19
but I do know that -- I don't know if they are still there but
20
there were cutouts, yes, sir.
21
Q. So -- and Losoya street right there is a two-lane street,
22
right?
23
A. Yes, sir.
24
A. That's from what I understand, yes.
25
Q. And a relatively narrow two lane street, correct?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
117
A. I would agree with that.
Q. And probably had been through there on occasions when
people coming, tourists or whomever, people walking around
there may have stepped off the curb in front of you or close
to it or things like that?
A. Sure. Yes, sir.
Q. That happens, right?
A. Oh, absolutely.
Q. So it is important, you would agree with me, that you do
10
need to signal moving from the right-hand lane to the left
11
hand lane as, particularly as you are going through Commerce
12
Street, correct?
13
A. Yes, sir, I agree.
14
Q. Because if you don't, the people on the street may not
15
know what you what your intentions are, correct?
16
A. That makes sense, yes, sir.
17
Q. And they could step out in front of you and you could hit
18
them?
19
A. Absolutely.
20
Q. Okay. All right. And you would agree with me that if
21
somebody didn't signal going from right to left, the right
22
lane to the left lane on Losoya Street at that intersection,
23
then that -- they probably ought to get a ticket for failing
24
to signal a lane change, don't you think?
25
A. Yes, sir. That's the law.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
118
Q. No question about that, right?
A. No, sir.
Q. All right. So on September the 9th, seventh, I am sorry,
2009 it is about 6:15 in the evening, correct, when you are
going through that intersection.
Q. So you keep going through the intersection, well let me
back up, (September the seventh) there is no question but that
you did change lanes from the right-hand lane to the left hand
lane on Losoya Street before you got to Commerce Street, true?
10
A. Can you repeat that one more time?
11
Q. Sure. There is no question the but that you did change
12
lanes from the right-hand lane on Losoya Street to the left
13
hand lane on Losoya street before you get to Commerce?
14
A. Yes, sir, that is correct.
15
Q. Okay. No question about that. And then you went, is that
16
a -- controlled intersection, to have -- do you understand me?
17
A. Could you define controlled?
18
Q. Sure I can. Does it either have a stop sign or a
19
stoplight?
20
A. That one has a stoplight, I believe.
21
Q. And was the stoplight green or did you have to stop at the
22
intersection?
23
A. I didn't have to stop at that one, I don't believe. Nope.
24
Q. So, okay. So you drove through the intersection. Do you
25
know roughly what your speed was at that point?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
119
A. I don't recall, sir, but the same as the traffic that I
was with. I think it was probably 25, 30.
Q. Okay. You -- was there other traffic on Losoya at that
point? Do you recall?
A. There was some, yes, sir.
Q. And when cow went across Commerce Street, you were going
to make a left-hand turn on to Market Street?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And heft your left hand signal on at that point?
10
A. For the turn to Market?
11
Q. Correct?
12
A. Yes, sir, it was, even though there were green arrows, I
13
don't believe it was required but it is just a habit if I turn
14
I put my signal on.
15
Q. Okay. Do you know a lot about the transportation code?
16
A. I don't. That's why I say I am not sure if that is
17
required or not but I do remember that there was a green
18
arrow, turn arrow for the left turn.
19
Q. All right. So Mr. Rynearson, isn't it possible you turned
20
your left turn signal on after cow went through the
21
intersection of Commerce and Losoya to make your left hand
22
turn on to Market?
23
A. Are you saying and forgot to signal the lane change?
24
Q. Correct.
25
A. No, sir. That's not possible.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
120
Q. Okay. Where were you on Losoya Street at the point that
you signalled the lane change?
A. I was just past the hotel that was on the right. I
believe it is the Hyatt or -- yes, so I turned right, go past
the hotel and then turned my left signal on and made the left,
the change there by the Hyatt, I believe the it is Hyatt.
Q. How long after -- how far had you traveled in the
right-hand lane after you turned your turn signal on before
you moved into the left-hand lane?
10
A. It immediately went from right turn signal for the right
11
to the left-turn signal. It was going from right turn signal
12
to a left-turn signal. If I remember, it is like a short
13
distance. To the Hyatt, in fact, I think the Hyatt is on the
14
corner of Losoya.
15
Q. Okay. My question really is, after you got on to Losoya
16
Street and maybe I miss upped your testimony I am sorry if I
17
did, but after you got on to Losoya Street and made your lane
18
change, how long was it -- how far had you traveled between
19
the time you put your left-turn signal on and the time you
20
moved from the right lane to the left lane?
21
A. Probably the length of the Hyatt. I am not sure how long
22
that is, but the turn signal was on at the beginning of where
23
the Hyatt is and was just past the Hyatt that I turned,
24
actually moved into the left lane.
25
Q. So you don't know? You just don't know how long of a

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
121
distance that was?
A. Oh, I would have to estimate. The Hyatt is kind of long.
A. I don't -- I don't know the distance offhand.
Q. All right. Thank you, sir. So you -- to make sure I
understood your testimony, Your Honor, making your left turn
on to Market Street at the time that you saw the police car
behind you?
A. Yes, sir. I was halfway between, in the turn to Market by
the sculpture.
10
Q. And you recognized the police vehicle as having turned on
11
its lights to pull you over?
12
A. Yes, sir. This was no other vehicle behind me and the
13
police car so I thought it was probably me, but by the time I
14
was on Market it was obvious.
15
Q. And you knew that it was a San Antonio -- or you knew that
16
it was a marked police vehicle anyway, right?
17
A. It looked like a police car,.
18
Q. Any question in your mind at that point really that it was
19
a San Antonio police car?
20
A. No. I knew it was a police officer in San Antonio so,
21
yes, sir, no questions.
22
Q. All right. So then you pulled up and pulled into the
23
Henry B. Gonzalez convention center driveway.
24
Q. And officer Richter pulled up where relative to your
25
vehicle?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
122
A. Directly behind me.
Q. When you say directly behind you, was there any distance
between the vehicles?
A. There was some distance, yes.
Q. Hike a car length two, car lengths?
A. Maybe half of a car length.
Q. And at that point, you knew that you were going to need to
show the officer that had pulled you over, your driver's
license and your insurance, correct?
10
A. I anticipated he would ask for them so.
11
Q. And where did you say that you retrieved your drivers
12
license from?
13
A. I got the driver's license from my wallet.
14
Q. And do you keep -- where do you keep your wallet -- where
15
was your wallet at that time?
16
A. It was on my passenger seat.
17
Q. So when you got your driver's license -- well, let me back
18
up. You looked in your rear-view mirror at some point to see
19
whether or not there was an officer coming, correct?
20
Q. And you understood at that point that it was a San Antonio
21
police officer that was approaching your car, right?
22
A. Yes, sir.
23
Q. No question about that in your mind, right?
24
A. Well, you know, a police officer in San Antonio, yes, sir.
25
Q. Okay. And when officer Richter approached, got to your

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
123
car?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. First of all, how long did it take after the stop for
officer Richter to get to your car?
A. Fifteen seconds, maybe, not long.
Q. Long enough for you to retrieve your license and your
insurance?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And your concealed handgun permit was with your license in
10
your wallet, correct?
11
A. Yes, sir. It is in a different compartment but it is
12
there, yes, sir.
13
Q. And you certainly had time to get that while he was
14
approaching you also, correct?
15
A. I don't -- I mean, I suppose I could have. But it wasn't
16
a whole lot of time. It felt rushed. I just had been pulled
17
over, getting this information. But I suppose I could have.
18
I certainly didn't make a conscious decision not to get it.
19
Q. Okay. You didn't make a conscious decision to get it
20
pause you didn't give it to him when he came up to the car,
21
right?
22
A. I didn't, but I wasn't waiting for him to get to the car.
23
I mean, he -- he was at the car as I had Mimi information in
24
my hands.
25
Q. All right so you could have gotten your concealed handgun

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
124
permit, you didn't make a conscious decision not to get it,
but you could have gotten it. Yes, sir.
Q. And you knew at least prior to September 1st, 2009, you
knew that you were supposed to tender your concealed handgun
license with your license, right?
A. Right. The -- my understanding at the time was that --
well my understanding at that time was that the law had
changed seven days prior and we no longer had to give our
concealed carry permit to officers when pulled over so I
10
thought that that was the state of the law.
11
Q. Okay. But you were wrong about that, right?
12
A. Yes, sir. The law changed not to change the requirement
13
but instead the law changed just getting rid of the penalty if
14
you don't do it, so --
15
>> Yes. As a military man, wouldn't you think that
16
it would be important to advise the officer that is coming to
17
your car that you have -- that you are carrying a loaded
18
nine-millimeter pistol in your pocket?
19
A. Sure. I mean, if she going to arrest me or whatever, I
20
would assume that that might be something he would want to
21
know, depending on the nature, but again I didn't make a
22
conscious decision not to provide it to him. It is just he
23
arrested me too fast. I mean, I had that information there
24
and he ordered me out of the vehicle like ten seconds later,
25
so I mean, I had no problem with him knowing that I had a

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
125
concealed carry card. This all happened extremely quickly.
Q. All right. But not as you have told us so quickly that
you couldn't have gotten your concealed handgun license?
A. I am being -- I am being maybe a little bit gracious to
the point that yes, I could have gotten the concealed carry
rather than my driver's license I could have moved faster. Or
something along those lines but it certainly was in my opinion
this was not -- this was not me -- this was not me not
providing it. It was overcome by events.
10
Q. All right. You did not provide it?
11
A. It is true. I did not provide it at that time, yes, sir.
12
Q. When officer Richter got up to your car, you say that he
13
just said insurance and REJ when officer Richter got to your
14
car he just said license and insurance?
15
A. Yes, sir.
16
Q. He didn't introduce himself?
17
A. That is correct, he did knots, sir.
18
Q. And you -- and you already had your license and insurance
19
in your hand at that point?
20
A. Yes, sir.
21
Q. Okay. And when he said license and insurance, you knew
22
that he wanted you to give you his license and insurance?
23
Your license and insurance?
24
A. Yes, sir.
25
Q. Let me back that up I completely messed that up. You knew

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
126
that he wanted -- competent he wanted you to give him your
license and insurance at that point, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Why didn't you just give it to him at that time?
A. Because I asked him why he pulled me over and we were
having a conversation and it is not like I waited a long time
in this conversation. He had just asked me for them and in
that time I asked him why did you pull me over and he said
because you have an out of stateliness plate and I with a
10
tonight make sure you have a driver's license. We were
11
Converse tag point and I had them right here so it didn't seem
12
like it was a major requirement for me to hand them over at
13
lightning speed to him. They are right here and we are having
14
a conversation, so --
15
Q. So you did not give them to him at that point?
16
A. At that instant, I did not, no, sir.
17
Q. All right. And that's the only thing that he had asked
18
you to do at that point, correct?
19
A. That's true, sir.
20
Q. Okay. And you asked him actually told him or asked him
21
why he had pulled you over?
22
A. Yes, sir.
23
Q. And then after you say, as you have testified, that he
24
told you that he wanted to see if you had a valid driver's
25
license, then you withdrew your license and insurance at that
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
127
point, correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't complete giving him the license and insurance
at that point?
A. At that point, yes, sir. That's true.
Q. And you did that because you wanted to challenge the
validity of the stop that he had made?
A. No, sir. It was tonight channel the validity. That's not
-- that had nothing to do with the license and registration it
10
is just that the conversation became the focus, I mean, I am
11
multitasking in the short time of space. This is just seconds
12
and we are having a conversation and I am confused now because
13
he just told me that he has pulled me over without legal
14
justification.
15
Q. And so, but what would have prevented you, if anything,
16
from simply at the same time you were multitasking,
17
multitasking your license and insurance out to officer
18
Richter?
19
A. Sure. I could have done that. That's true.
20
Q. And probably wouldn't be here?
21
A. In that instant, however, I don't believe that that would
22
be much different than me giving it to him five seconds or ten
23
secondses later while we are having this conversation. I
24
gave, I gave to him when I and thed the vehicle ten seconds
25
later,s it was not a conscious decision to not give them to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
128
him. That was not -- all I was doing was talking to him at
that moment and seconds later he ordered me out of the vehicle
and I stepped out of the vehicle and he not all my documents
in his hand.
Q. Officer Richter had asked you for your license and
insurance, you didn't tell him, look, you know, I want to talk
about this first, you didn't you didn't tell him why you were
not giving him your license and insurance, did you?
A. I think he upped why I wasn't, because we were having a
10
conversation and only seconds had elapsed.
11
Q. Well, that is not -- my question, is you did not tell him
12
that you were not going to give it to him at that point,
13
correct?
14
A. That is correct. I didn't say that.
15
A. That is true.
16
Q. You really do not know what was going through officer
17
Richter's mind at that point, correct?
18
A. That is definitely true.
19
Q. Okay. Did you -- you told officer Richter that he was
20
violating your constitutional rights, didn't he?
21
A. That's not true, that's incorrect, I never said that.
22
Q. And officer Richter told you on several occasions to give
23
him your license and insurance prior to the time that you gave
24
it to him, true?
25
A. That is incorrect, sir. That's false.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
129
Q. Why would -- strike that. So it was about ten seconds
from the time that officer Richter got to your car to the time
that you got out of your car?
A. No, sir. From him coming from his car to my car and me
getting out?
Q. Right.
A. No. It would have been ten seconds or so for him to walk
from his car to my car and then another ten, 15 seconds maybe
ten seconds probably closer before he had arrived at my
10
vehicle and ordered me out of the vehicle, and I got out of
11
the vehicle. It was probably -- from ordering me out of the
12
vehicle I would say closer to ten seconds, 15 seconds before
13
if I got out and I was actually outside the vehicle. It was
14
very fast.
15
Q. So let me just make sure I understand. It was ten to 15
16
seconds from the time he got to your window to the time that
17
you got out of your vehicle?
18
A. That is correct.
19
Q. And it is your testimony that -- that the officer -- that
20
you never said anything to officer Richter about violating
21
your constitutional rights?
22
A. That is correct, sir. I never said anything about my
23
constitutional rights.
24
Q. Okay. You are obviously from your testimony here today
25
very keen about making sure your constitutional rights are

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
130
kept intact, correct?
A. That is true, sir.
Q. Okay. And you felt like you had been pulled over for an
invalid reason?
A. After he informed me that he pulled me over just to see if
I had a driver's license, yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you believed that was a violation of your
constitutional rights?
A. Yes, sir.
10
Q. And you never said that to him?
11
A. The only time I mentioned the Constitution was in the --
12
when we almost got near the magistrate's office and I let him
13
know about the importance and the people I saw defending the
14
Constitution that he had just trampled on, other than that, I
15
expressed the same ideas without ever mentioning the term
16
constitutional rights. I said you pulled me over without
17
cause.
18
Q. Okay. And that's all that that took for officer, in your
19
-- based on your testimony, all it took for officer Richter to
20
become completely irate was you saying you pulled me over
21
without cause?
22
A. Absolutely.
23
Q. Period?
24
A. Like a switch flipped.
25
Q. And at that point, -- had you ever run into officer

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
131
Richter in San Antonio before?
A. Not that I am aware of, no, sir.
Q. Do you have any idea what he was doing prior to the time
that he pulled you over?
A. From reading documents I do know. I mean, I believe I
have an idea, but at that time, I had no idea what he was
doing prior.
Q. Sure. All right. So have you -- after he became, as you
say, irate, did you ask him to calm down?
10
A. No, sir.
11
Q. Did he raise his voice at you?
12
A. Yes, sir.
13
Q. What did he say?
14
A. Well, when he told know get out of the vehicle, that was,
15
you know, get out of the vehicle, very irate, red faced,
16
stepped back, aggressive postures. And then why are you being
17
aggressive, don't you know I am a cop? From there on, it was.
18
Until we got -- it wasn't until we got close to the
19
magistrate's office that his demeanor had gone band back and
20
was not more mellow at the magistrate's office.
21
Q. And when you got out of the car, officer Richter asked you
22
to turn around and face the car so he could handcuff you?
23
A. He said turn around and face your vehicle, yes.
24
Q. And you did?
25
A. Yes, sir.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
132
Q. And he put the handcuffs on you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how long did that take?
A. Putting the handcuffs on me?
Q. Well just from the time you got out of your car until the
point you were actually the handcuffed.
A. Three to five seconds.
Q. Then how long was it between the time that you left the
side of your car and got into the back of the patrol car?
10
A. Again, probably ten to 15 seconds.
11
Q. Ever did you ever during that period of time tell officer
12
Richter that you had a loaded handgun in your right front
13
cargo pants pocket?
14
A. That seemed, at that time, that seemed probably not a good
15
idea to inform him at that point of, so, no, sir, I did not.
16
Q. All right. When you did inform him of that, you say --
17
first of all, you say that he didn't get over being irate
18
until you got to the magistrate's office, roughly, right?
19
A. Yes, sir.
20
Q. So he was still out irate at the time that you did tell
21
him you had a loaded hand gun in your pocket, correct?
22
A. Yes, sir.
23
Q. What did he do?
24
A. Check.
25
A. He told me that, you know, that was one more thing he got
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
133
me on.
Q. What did you think he was going to do if you told him
between the time that you were -- or during the period of time
that you were going from your car to his car?
A. I didn't know at that point.
Q. Well, obviously he did not do anything, correct?
A. Anything.
A. As far as what?
Q. As far as were you worried he was going to do something to
10
harm you?
11
A. Yes. That was certainly a possibility.
12
Q. Okay. Obviously that never happened?
13
A. That did not happen outside of handcuffs and, you know,
14
that. It was not a beatdown story. However, I would, I was
15
certainly concerned.
16
Q. Offered, Richter, did officer Richter take the handgun
17
from you while you were at the patrol vehicle -- in the patrol
18
vehicle there at the Henry B. Gonzales convention center?
19
A. No, sir he did not.
20
Q. Are you sure about that?
21
A. I am positive.
22
Q. And you got in the car, how long were you there before you
23
left for the magistrate's office?
24
A. After he got me into the car until we actually pulled out,
25
it was probably 20 minutes, 25 minutes, maybe.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
134
Q. Mr. Rynearson, being in the military for almost 19 and a
half years now, I mean, you are supposed to follow orders,
correct?
A. Yes, sir. I am supposed to follow lawful orders, that is
correct.
Q. And you challenge unlawful orders; is that right?
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, may we approach on this.
THE COURT: No, that's all right. That is an
objection, that is sustained.
10
BY MR. RALLS:
11
Q. You challenged officer Richter's ability to pull you over,
12
correct?
13
Q. Or whether he had pulled you over validly, correct?
14
A. I asked him to confirm that he had just pulled me over
15
without cause and I believe that he certainly took that as a
16
challenge. And that was my intention to point out to him that
17
he -- you can't just pull me over to see if I have a driver's
18
license. So in that sense, yes, sir, in that sense, I believe
19
he felt challenged.
20
Q. You don't know what would have happened had you just
21
similar Friday handed him your driver's license and insurance,
22
correct?
23
A. I don't know. I don't know that anything would have
24
changed. You right, sir, I don't know.
25
Q. Zero you could have gotten a verbal warning?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
135
A. A verbal warning for what, sir?
Q. For failing to signal a lane change?
A. He had not mentioned failing to signal a lane change until
I challenged him, so I don't believe that that would have -- I
don't believe I would have gotten a verbal warning for
something I did not do had I given him my documents and not
challenged him. But you are right, sir, I don't know. I
don't know what he would have done.
Q. When you left -- you left the convention center and went
10
to the magistrate's court and that is when you had the
11
conversation about the fact that you had killed people and
12
seen other people die and your constitutional rights, correct?
13
A. A yes, sir. That's when I told him I had seen far better
14
men die to protect the document he had just trampled on, yes,
15
sir.
16
Q. And you were sitting in the backseat where relative to
17
officer Richter in the front seat?
18
A. I was left side and he was on the left side, driver's
19
side.
20
21
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, excuse me, may we approach

the bench?
22
THE COURT: Yes. Before you do that, though.
23
Ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take our afternoon
24
break and we will bring you back in about ten minutes.
25
(Jury leaves courtroom.)

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
136
THE COURT: Please be seated. Yes.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I just wanted to go into
given Mr. Rynearson's testimony that he had received a letter
of reprimand I wanted to go into the motion in limine ruling
regarding this letter of rip manned that he got back on
October 27, 2009. And ask him about other letters of
reprimand that he has got ten as well as any discipline for
failure to follow direct orders.
THE COURT: Your response.
10
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. We had quite a bit
11
of an argument or discussion here on October 22nd, Your Honor,
12
as it concerns this letter, Your Honor, the specific ruling of
13
the Court was that we could not ask for damages relating to
14
any effects on his promotion, ability to move on through a
15
higher rank. That -- and we have complied with that Court's
16
ruling. I don't think we are precluded from saying that the
17
reporting this arrest and getting a letter of reprimand caused
18
him a stigma. And that it went into his personnel file.
19
THE COURT: The only thing that is concerning me
20
though as I reviewed the exhibits in this case, is leather
21
letter of reprimand, pardon me, the letter of reprimand is
22
dated October 27, '09, in that letter it indicates two
23
incidents for which he is being reprimanded. The incident
24
which is the subject of this case and then alleged
25
misrepresentations that he made to his superiors regarding the

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
137
Air Force times and any articles that might be in there. So
he is reprimanded for two things. And so now you have
injected into this case that he ought to receive damages for
being subjected to a letter of reprimand, when the letter of
reprimand has two separate items in it.
MR. MALDONADO: I think -- I think I have injected
to the Court he had to report, in this trial, he had to report
this to the -- and it lettered in the letter of reprimand, I
am not sure bringing up a reprimand on an unrelated, doesn't
10
have to do with reporting a reporting an arrest or, you know,
11
disobeying an unlawful order or lawful order has nothing to do
12
with that, Your Honor.
13
THE COURT: You are missing -- you are mixing and
14
mixing things. He receives two letters of reprimands, he
15
receives October 7, '09 which is reprimanding him for this
16
incident and misrepresentations regarding an article in the
17
Air Force times. And then he receives a separate reprimand in
18
October of 2011. That is the refall to obey command. So I am
19
trying to keep the two very separate. So with regard to --
20
and so we are not going into the refusal to obey a command. I
21
am only concerned about whether I should let the defendant
22
bring up the October 2709 reprimand at all.
23
MR. MALDONADO: I think that -- I think that Mr.
24
Ralls certainly could ask have you ever been, prior to
25
October, September 7, 2009, have you been reprimanded for any

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
138
similar events, any similar infractions.
THE COURT: Well the answer to that is no.
MR. MALDONADO: Right.
THE COURT: So now we are going back to then,
Mr. Rynearson raised in the standard is an element, what I
consider to be seeking as an element of damages the fact that
he received a letter of reprimand. Is that your theory or
not?
9
10
MR. MALDONADO: That he is -- repeat that again,

Your Honor.
11
MR. MALDONADO: Maybe I can read it.
12
THE COURT: Well, that's fine too. Are you going to
13
argue a to the jury he ought to receive mental anguish damages
14
for having received the letter of reprimand in October of '09?
15
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, may I?
16
THE COURT: Well, I guess I need an answer to that
17
first, because if the answer is yes, well, then, I am going to
18
hear from you. If the answer is no, then I know where we are
19
headed.
20
MR. MALDONADO: I guess my concern is this, Your
21
Honor. Is that I don't -- I don't think I have a problem if
22
Mr. Rynearson answers questions about what else was he
23
reprimanded for on October 2009, if Mr. Ralls insists on
24
submitting this for the jury to review, I would have to talk
25
to my client, because I don't think it is fair for the jury to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
139
see this. You know, the fact that he was stigmatized for
having to report the arrest stands on its own and he can claim
that he was damaged for that, independent of receiving a
reprimand for a debate that he had with public affairs.
5
6
THE COURT: So let's pa go back to my question are

you going to try to argue to the jury that he suffered mental
anguish damages as a result of being reprimanded in October of
'09?
9
10
11
12
13
MR. MALDONADO: At this point I would have to say

yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, then you make it an aspect of
inquiry. So Mr. Ralls.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, it goes -- he has injected
14
this letter of reprimand that is misleading the jury at this
15
point he only received one letter of reprimand when he in fact
16
got two letters of reprimand at the same time and both, if
17
anything, had, if he was -- if his mental anguish was impacted
18
in some way or his career was impacted in some way, and that
19
has left out, the jury doesn't know one way or the other but
20
they should know he had a second letter of reprimand at the
21
same time he had the first letter of reprimand because it is
22
unfair otherwise.
23
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: Can we clarify I think we are

talking about one letter of reprimand.
THE COURT: Well.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
140
MR. MALDONADO: That includes two things.
THE COURT: Mr. Ralls is talking about two. This is
my ruling. Mr. Rynearson has injected the October 2709 letter
of reprimand into this proceeding, so I am going allow Mr.
Ralls to cross-examine him as to October 27, '09 reprimand,
and the contents of D 3. Mr. Rynearson has not opened the
door regarding the October 2011 letter of reprimand. So that
is not going to come in and he is not injecting or I am not
going to allow because it is speculation the injection that
10
his reprimand or reprimands caused him to be denied promotion
11
to lieutenant colonel so I am not going to submit that as an
12
element of damages, because that is speculative on his part.
13
So that is the ruling. I am splitting it between two letter
14
of reprimands. October 2011 does not get addressed by the
15
defendant. Mr. Ralls can go into the October 09.
16
17
18
MR. RALLS: And may I admit deposition Exhibit I am

sorry Defendant's Exhibit 3 as an exhibit, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Well, you are going to have to prove it
19
up, but you can question him from it and then if it has been
20
proven up then I will entertain any objections at that point.
21
MR. MALDONADO: Can I, sorry to beat this Horst,
22
Your Honor, I don't have my client here to confer on this.
23
This is the question regarding seeking -- would the Court --
24
if we asked for damages simply on the fact that he was
25
stigmatized by having to report the arrest and we don't

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
141
request damages for the letter of reprimand, and we are fine
-- I mean I need to consult with my client and we are fine
with an instruction from the Court saying they are not seeking
damages for the letter of reprimand in and any effects it may
have on his promotion, could we have in that way limit the
admission and questioning of this letter of reprimand?
THE COURT: If you are not going to seek damages as
a result of being reprimanded then this no longer becomes an
issue and I will later instruct the jury to disregard the fact
10
that he received any letter of reprimand. That is not an
11
element of damages in this case.
12
MR. MALDONADO: Can Mr. Rynearson come down and --
13
THE COURT: Yes. Let's take a five minute break and
14
you can confer.
15
16
(Brief recess.)
17
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. What are
18
19
rewe doing.
MR. MALDONADO: After consulting with my client we
20
will not request damages for the letter of reprimand and a
21
would agree to limiting instruction that that, that we are not
22
requesting that and notwithstanding his testimony that he was
23
reprimanded.
24
25
MR. RALLS: I am sorry what was the last part about

rescinding? Did you say something about rescinding his
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
142
1
2
testimony.
MR. MALDONADO: Not withstanding the fact he
testified about the letter of reprimand.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, regardless, it is still
before the jury. There is no way they can -- there is no way
we can get it out of the juror's mine that he has an adverse
personnel action in his military file as a result of this
incident and it is unfair to -- and misleading and it is
unfair to my client to not let the jury be made aware that he
10
had a similar adverse personnel action, not similar based in
11
in fact but he also had a letter of reprimand for another
12
reason at the same time.
13
14
15
16
17
THE COURT: Yes. Now you talking about the

2011 letter.
MR. RALLS: No, no. You were I am talking about the
2009 letter. Because he had two reprimands on that letter.
THE COURT: Yes, but one was for this incident, no
18
at similar incident. And then the other incident is the Air
19
Force times article regarding the Border Patrol, is that.
20
MR. RALLS: Right, that's what I meant not a similar
21
in a fact incident but he has two reprimands in the
22
October 27, 20mine letter.
23
THE COURT: That is going to be cured by a limiting
24
instruction so I want to keep this case just to this case. We
25
are not going to go into other incidents. So any objections

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
from the defense are overruled.

MR. RALLS: Your Honor, may I admit Defendant's
Exhibit 3 just for the record.
THE COURT: Well, for purposes for appellate
purposes but not for showing the jury, yes.
MR. RALLS: Yes, sir, I am sorry, exactly righteous
so that can be made a part of the record.
THE COURT: Anything else we need to take up before
the jury comes in.
MR. MALDONADO: Do I need to state on the record any
objections to the, to that exhibit, Your Honor?
12
THE COURT: No, your objections are carried over.
13
MR. MALDONADO: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
14
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Ralls?
15
MR. RALLS: Yes, Your Honor, no, nothing before the
16
jury comes in.
17
THE COURT: Bring them in.
18
(Jury enters courtroom.). (Exhibit 3 is admitted
19
20
for appellate purposes only) reporter's note).

THE COURT: Please be seated. Mr. Ralls, you can
21
continue.
22
BY MR. RALLS:
23
Q. Thank you, Your Honor.
24
BY MR. RALLS:
25
Q. Mr. Rynearson, let's go back to the point where you went

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
144
to the magistrate's office. So when you got to the
magistrate's office, you were booked into the -- into a
holding cell there, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you stayed in that holding cell for how long?
A. Approximately six hours.
Q. Six hours total?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You were taken out at one point for -- to get some bonding
10
money or something and put back in, right?
11
A. Yes, sir.
12
Q. Okay.
13
A. Actually, sir, after I got the bonding money from the ATM,
14
I didn't go back in, but initially when she had me, when she
15
told me that was an option and I said I will take that option,
16
she then placed me back in but --
17
Q. All right. Okay. So and during that six hours, how many
18
other people how many people were this the cell?
19
A. I believe six.
20
Q. Okay. And you know -- once you were taken to the
21
magistrate's office, you weren't taken to a different
22
building, were you?
23
A. No, sir.
24
Q. Okay. Are you familiar, not having been around San
25
Antonio, with the Bexar County adult detention center,
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
145
otherwise known as the jail?
A. No, sir.
Q. You weren't taken to the jail?
A. No, sir. I guess I was taken to the magistrate's office
and put in a cell.
Q. And then you were released after six hours and basically
went home at that point, right or went back to your apartment?
A. Yes, sir. I went back into my apartment until the
property section opened up so I could try to retrieve my
10
property.
11
Q. And were you able to retrieve all of your property with
12
the exception of your block, wasn't it a Glock?
13
A. Yes, sir.
14
Q. With the exception of your Glock nine-millimeter were you
15
able to retrieve all the rest of cure property?
16
A. That is correct, yes, sir, I was.
17
Q. And you would have been able to retrieve your Glock had
18
you been a little more persistent about it, true?
19
A. Sir, if I had taken leave from work, and traveled to San
20
Antonio and stood in line and talked with the same people who
21
took my weapon and didn't refuse to give it back to me even
22
though I haven't been convicted of any crime failing alone
23
failing to signal a lane change and even though I have a
24
concealed carry permit.
25
MR. RALLS: Objection, nonresponsive.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
146
THE WITNESS: Okay, sir.
BY MR. RALLS:
Q. My question is simply, you would have -- if you had been
more persistent you could have gotten your Glock back,
correct?
A. Sir, that is possible. With much more effort on my part I
may have gotten my Glock back.
Q. All right. And the mental anguish that you suffered,
10
aside from the fact that you believed that your constitutional
11
rights were violated, while you were in the magistrate's
12
office was just observing, being in there with these other
13
individuals?
14
A. The traumatic experience isn't so much from being in the
15
jail. I mean, that was certainly unpleasant, someone was --
16
it was unpleasant. The real trauma comes from (triple) being
17
seized out of nowhere and having your liberty taken away, your
18
body, the control of your body taken away, someone puts
19
handcuffs on you, you have no idea what they are going to do
20
with you. They can do this, they could do that, you have
21
no-no, you have no control, that's a trauma.
22
Q. And you had been arrested once before and spent the night
23
in jail, correct?
24
A. That is correct, sir.
25
Q. What were you arrested for on that occasion?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
147
A. That one was in Dallas, Texas. I had just pot to my first
operational squadron, so I was a brand-new lieutenant,
brand-new wings, and I hadn't been in Texas, outside of pilot
training for more than two weeks, went to Dallas with some
people that were in a military officer group, they invited me,
we are at Ruby Tuesday in the bar of Ruby Tuesday and
drinking, a police officer comes over to my new friend,
another pilot in the squadron and tells him he better clean up
his language or he is going to get taken to jail and I say can
10
you really be taken to jail for your happening and he said I
11
was. Talking to you I am just asking a legal question and he
12
arrested me. He claimed it was for public intoxication. He
13
refused to give me a blood test, he refused to give me a
14
sobriety test. The charm was dismissed.
15
Q. So -- but you spent so that is another occasion where you
16
asked a run in with a police officer that you had nothing to
17
do with being arrested?
18
A. I am sorry, sir, nothing to do with -- in as far as you
19
are concerned, you did nothing wrong to be arrested on that
20
occasion either, correct.
21
A. As far as I was concerned and as far as the judge was
22
concerned I suppose when he dismissed it.
23
Q. Well, objection nonresponsive you really don't know why
24
the judge dismissed it, do you?
25
A. Because the police officer failed to show up.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
148
Q. So now, Mr. Rynearson, on that occasion, so you would have
had the same feelings about your constitutional rights being
vie made, wouldn't you?
A. Yes. I believe in that case, you know, it was a violation
of my Fourth Amendment rights unless he really thought I was
publicly intoxicated, but I mean, that's that's questionable,
maybe he thought I was. I would give him some leeway on that
one.
Q. Did you file a lawsuit against him?
10
A. No, sir. I deployed to Bosnia and I didn't file a lawsuit
11
on him.
12
Q. Okay.
13
Q. And how long were you in jail on that particular occasion?
14
A. Oh, I was almost -- it was almost 20 years ago, I think
15
maybe, I probably got in there early afternoon. Twelve hours,
16
probably, roughly.
17
Q. By the way, how long have you been a major?
18
A. I have been a major for probably eight years. Roughly.
19
Q. And I think that you testified earlier that officer
20
Richter yanked you out of your car. Are you talking about
21
actually physically reached in and yanked you?
22
A. No, sir. I was being figurative.
23
Q. Okay. Well, all right. So he told you to get out of your
24
car and wow not out. He showed up and quickly ordered me out
25
of my vehicle and put me in handcuffs.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
149
Q. Objection, nonresponsive, Your Honor?
THE COURT: That's sustained.
BY MR. RALLS:
Q. Mr. Rynearson, the question is really very simple, he
ordered you to get out of your car and you got out of your
car?
A. That is correct. I apologize.
8
9
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I will pass the witness at

this time.
10
THE COURT: Any redirect?
11
MR. MALDONADO: None, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT: You may step down, sir. Thank you.
13
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
14
THE COURT: .
15
THE COURT: Any other witnesses?
16
MR. MALDONADO: No-no Your Honor, we rest.
17
THE COURT: Plaintiffs rest.
18
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I guess I need to make a --
19
20
please.
THE COURT: Your Honor, I have to take up a legal
21
matter again, I am sorry to excuse you but I will bring you
22
back as soon as I can. Recess recess for jury. Change that.
23
(Jury leaves courtroom.)
24
THE COURT: Please seated Mr. Ralls.
25
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor, Your Honor, at

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
150
this time comes defendant Edwin Rynearson and files a motion
for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's claims
against the defendant on the -- on the Fourth Amendment claim
there was -- we don't believe there is sufficient evidence to
support a violation of his Fourth Amendment, secondly with
regard to the First Amendment claim there is no evidence that
there was any kind of chilling effect on Mr. Rynearson as a
result of this incident. So he doesn't meet the requirements
of the Keenan case, even if the Court finds that there was not
10
probable cause for the Fourth Amendment arrest and finally,
11
Your Honor, we ask for judgment as a matter of law on any
12
allegation of -- any kind of punitive damages as a result of
13
the fact that there has been no evidence which would support
14
any punitive damages at this point.
15
THE COURT: Your response.
16
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. On the illegal
17
stop, Your Honor, the evidence before the Court right now is
18
that officer Richter stopped Mr. Rynearson for an illegal
19
reason, a reason that is not sanctioned by the United States.
20
That is enough to go to the jury at this point, Your Honor.
21
On the false arrest, no probable cause, the evidence before
22
the Court right now is that there was no probable cause
23
because no violation had been committed. If Mr. Rynearson is
24
to be believed he had not violated any traffic violation, any
25
law that warranted his arrest and be put in jail. On the

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
151
First Amendment retaliation case, Your Honor, the evidence is
that he was retaliated against for having spoken up. My
understanding of the law is that it is not a requirement that
he specifically show that his speech was chilled, but rather
that the actions of the defendant were intended to chill his
speech and for that reason -- for those reasons -- oh, and on
the punitive damages, Your Honor, the evidence before the
Court right now is that officer Richter, a peace officer of
the state of Texas, who can be presumed to know what the laws
10
are, intentionally, knowingly disregarded the federal rights
11
of Mr. Rynearson and violated the constitutional rights and
12
for those reasons, Your Honor, we ask that the Court deny the
13
motion, judgment for the defendant.
14
THE COURT: What is concerning me is the punitive
15
damage claims. I mean, don't you have a burden of showing
16
maliciousness or reckless indifference?
17
MR. MALDONADO: I am not sure about reckless
18
indifference, Your Honor, because that may be an Eighth
19
Amendment standard, but we do have to show that there was a
20
disregard of his federal rights, and for that reason, evidence
21
is being the Court that we have a peace officer who is assumed
22
to know what the laws are, and he intentionally disregards
23
them. He stated the reason he stopped, at least the evidence
24
right now before the Court is the reason he -- the reason the
25
officer stopped Mr. Rynearson check up above is for a reason

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
152
not sanctioned by the Supreme Court and is not lawful under
the Fourth Amendment. And an additional fact, if I can add,
Your Honor, is that the jury could believe -- if the jury
believes Mr. Rynearson, they could conclude that officer
Rynearson not only then violated Mr. Rynearson's rights but
then he lied about it by issuing him a citation. Rick.
THE COURT: Mr. Ralls, do you want to respond?
MR. RALLS: Yes, Your Honor. On the -- on the First
Amendment retaliation claim, retaliatory arrest claim, Your
10
Honor, the Keenan case, which is Keenan versus police go lis
11
ski. 290, fed third two, 52, it is a 2002 Fifth Circuit case
12
says that to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim
13
against an ordinary citizen, Keenan must show they were
14
engaged in constitutionally protected activity, with
15
defendant's, would defendant's action cause them so suffer an
16
injury from an person of ordinary firm tons continue to engage
17
in that activity and the defendant's adverse actions were
18
intended to. Protected conduct. And I don't believe there is
19
any evidence with regard to Mr. Rynearson's -- with regard to
20
a whether or not a person of ordinary firmness would have been
21
chilled from continuing to engage in the kind of activity that
22
Mr. Rynearson was engaging in. With regard to the punitive
23
damages claim, Your Honor, I think that the plaintiffs have to
24
show that Mr. Rynearson was maliciously, consciously and
25
maliciously disregarded the plaintiff's constitutional rights.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
153
It can't simply be that he consciously disregarded the
constitutional rights, it has to be intentional and malicious,
and I don't think there is any evidence of that, Your Honor.
4
5
6
7
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, I took the -- Mr. Ralls

spoke about this, the Keenan case.
THE COURT: I am not worried about that one. I will
hear your response on punitive damages.
MR. MALDONADO: On punitive damages.
MR. RALLS: I am sorry, but may I just addles, there
10
was no -- he never issued a citation that was -- that was put
11
in the record anywhere. I mean, even if -- I don't think
12
there is going to be -- the evidence will be disputed with
13
regard to the first of all whether a citation was issued and
14
there certainly was never one put on record anywhere, Your
15
Honor.
16
THE COURT: Your argument on punitive damages.
17
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor, again, the proposed
18
instructions that we submitted are drawn from the Fifth
19
Circuit pattern instructions. Now, I grant that those are
20
just pattern instructions, we have to check the law, but my
21
research of it is you have to show either the conduct was
22
malicious or in reckless disregard of the plaintiff's federal
23
rights and there is no requirement that by a conscious
24
disregard, an intentional disregard, in this instance, the
25
evidence has shown that Mr. Rynearson clearly expressed his

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
154
fright to question a police officer, clearly, clearly
expressed his right that he had been unlawfully stopped, which
that is protected, and as a result officer Richter took
adverse actions against -- against Mr. Rynearson and I think
we have presented enough evidence for the jury to conclude
whether there was a reckless disregard of Mr. Rynearson's
rights.
THE COURT: Yes. Sheer the ruling on the motion for
directed verdict. On the first two points, the First
10
Amendment claim and the Fourth Amendment claim, that shot
11
denied. With regard to the punitive damages, however, there
12
has to be a showing of malice, and there hasn't been the
13
requisite showing of malice that would entitle a reasonable
14
jury to find malicious conduct in this case. So it is granted
15
as to punitive damages. Anything else?
16
MR. MALDONADO: If we go back this evening, you were
17
and we do research would with and it? A brief would the Court
18
reconsider? Would the Court accept that?
19
THE COURT: I will accept it, I am always willing to
20
stand corrected, so you are welcome to try to see where I am
21
failing here. There will be homework tonight for both of you
22
anyway because I will give you the proposed jury charge in a
23
little while and you will need to take that home tonight and
24
see what I have done there.
25
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Ralls?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
155
THE COURT: We are ready to bring them in.
3
4
5
6
7
THE COURT: Please be seated. Mr. Ralls, your

witness.
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, at
this time the defense would call Edwin Richter to the stand.
MR. MALDONADO: Test.
MR. RALLS: Test.
10
(Oath administered to the witness.)
11
12
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
13
CROSS EXAMINATION
14
BY MR. RALLS:
15
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Richter, you go by Rick?
16
A. Yes, sir, I do.
17
Q. Rick, can you tell us a little bit about yourself, where
18
you are born and raised?
19
A. Here in San Antonio, Knicks hospital, I spent some of my
20
younger years here and my father was military, so we moved
21
around a little bit after that, north Texas, outside of
22
Dallas, Fort Worth, where he was a helicopter pilot, training
23
for Vietnam. From there, to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where
24
he went to the war college and from there, to Fort Bragg,
25
North Carolina, where I did middle school and high school.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
156
Q. Where did you graduate from high school?
A. Westover high school in North Carolina.
Q. Did you have other family members that were in the
military?
A. Yes, sir, I did. My father, did 29 years in the U.S.
army, retired, and my brother did 20 years, and my self, I did
six years active duty.
Q. Okay. And your brother did 20 years in what?
A. Special forces. U.S. army.
10
Q. Okay. And you said that you did six years in the
11
military, what branch were you in?
12
A. I was in the U.S. army.
13
Q. What was your military occupation or specialty in the, or
14
your job in the army?
15
A. Military police officer a.
16
Q. And for the entire six years?
17
A. Yes, sir.
18
Q. Okay. And did you enlist for six years or is that more
19
than one enlistment?
20
A. I enlisted initially three years and then I reenlisted for
21
another 323.
22
MR. MALDONADO: You could have gotten out after
23
three.
24
A. Yes, sir, certainly.
25
Q. And so what years were you in the army?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
157
A. July of 1979 through April of 1985.
Q. And where were you stationed while you were in the army?
A. Two years in the Panama canal, who years at forth
Leavenworth, and a year over in turkey, about 60 miles from
Russia and five months at Fort Hood.
A. And the rest of that was schools here and there.
Q. All right, sir. Rick, when did you get out? Let's say
you got out of the military in 85, you said?
A. Yes, I did.
10
Q. And you got out where?
11
A. Fort Hood, Texas.
12
Q. Did you receive an honorable discharge?
13
A. Yes, sir. I did.
14
Q. Where did you go Fort Worth after you left the army?
15
A. I wanted to come to San Antonio PD to get in as a civilian
16
police officer but they had a hiring freeze back then in 1985
17
so I knew the Chief of Police up in Leavenworth Kansas where I
18
had been a police, military police officer, so he always told
19
me hey if you need a job come find me and I will hire you, so
20
I got out of the army Friday night and got hired on up there
21
Monday morning, so -- have with the Leavenworth Kansas police
22
department.
23
A. Yes, sir.
24
Q. What was your job with them?
25
A. I was patrol officer.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
158
Q. Okay. Did you have to go through any sort of academy for
-- to become a peace officer in Kansas?
A. Yes, sir. Went through the state of Kansas, all police
officers go through a state run police academy, so I went
through the state of Kansas police department.
Q. And how long were you on, let me back up did you have to
go through any sort of academy to become a military policeman?
A. Yes, sir, I went there Umile tripolice, went through basic
training and after that I went to graduate school, military
10
police fad, AIT.
11
Q. And how long were you in Leavenworth, with the Leavenworth
12
PD?
13
A. (Academy).
14
A. Just around three years.
15
16
A. I transferred to San Antonio police, rehired again, so I
17
applied down here and transferred down here.
18
Q. And were you accepted in the academy at San Antonio Police
19
Department?
20
A. I was, yeah, I worked that night, Friday night, 11 worth
21
police department, backed packed up to U-haul and started the
22
San Antonio Police Department Monday morning.
23
Q. And a when was that? Do you recall the dates that you
24
were in the police academy?
25
A. I believe it was August of 1987, I started the police

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
159
academy, I don't remember the exact date, I think August 13,
something like that.
Q. And how long was the police academy at that time?
A. Six months long.
Q. All right. Once wow pot out of the police academy, where
were you assigned?
A. Patrol, west substation on Culebra road.
Q. Okay. And how long were you assigned to patrol?
A. I worked out on the west substation for ten months and
10
then I transferred to the central patrol substation downtown
11
for two months.
12
Q. What did you do as a patrol officer?
13
A. You are dispatched by the police dispatchers for any
14
number of the calls, accidents, to disturbances, to alarms, to
15
fights, to murders, you handle everything.
16
Q. And you did that for about a year?
17
A. Yes, sir.
18
Q. All right. After you left patrol, where were you
19
transferred to?
20
A. I went into the traffic division.
21
Q. And what is the traffic division in SAPD?
22
A. The traffic division in SAPD maintains all the freeways
23
and major arteries throughout the entire City of San Antonio
24
for traffic violations of the Texas transportation code.
25
Q. All right.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
160
Q. And how long were you in the traffic -- is it the
division?
A. Traffic division,.
Q. How long were you in the traffic division?
A. I worked San Antonio traffic division for nine years.
Q. How many -- and when you worked, is that a 40 hour job
week or how does that work?
A. It is 40 hours a week, yes, sir.
Q. And when you are out on the road, during those 40 hours
10
are you making contact with civilians?
11
A. Substantial contacts, yes, all through the shift.
12
Q. And how many contacts would you say that you made a day
13
with civilians when you were a traffic officer?
14
A. I would say anywhere from 15 to if the. Fifteen to 50.
15
Q. And you did that for about nine years?
16
A. Yes, sir.
17
Q. So can you estimate for us the number of contacts you had?
18
A. It is in the hundreds of thousands.
19
Q. Okay.
20
A. I wouldn't even, wouldn't even know the number, sir.
21
Q. All right. When you left the traffic division, where did
22
you go?
23
A. After nine years on the traffic division I transferred
24
over to the bike patrol division downtown.
25
Q. And can you explain to the major a little bit about what
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
161
the bike patrol is?
A. Bike patrol is like your policeman on a mountain pike but
he is readily accessible, because we can go places where a car
can't go, so we take care of the entire downtown area as far
as any kind of crime that is observed, the almost 24 hours a
day, I think the bike patrol unit runs 20 hours a day so there
is a four hour lapse that the patrol cars are the only ones on
the street but other than that all the businesses downtown,
directly deal with the bike patrol units, freeze up the cars
10
to be more responsive to calls from the dispatcher, we try to
11
keep the traffic under control downtown, along with the
12
businesses and any crime that might happen on the River Walk
13
and all of that, is all handled by the bike patrol division.
14
Q. Okay. And so how many years did you -- you are retired
15
now, right?
16
A. Yes, sir, I retired February 14 of 2015.
17
Q. Okay. How many years were you a San Antonio police
18
officer?
19
A. Twenty-seven years.
20
Q. When you were working the bike patrol you said that you
21
were working downtown, right?
22
A. Yes, sir.
23
Q. And when you are working downtown on the bike -- or let me
24
back up. When you were in the traffic division, did you ever
25
have occasion to notice whether there were many vehicles on

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
162
San Antonio streets without a state without of stateliness
plates?
A. There are lots, we are a military U.S., a town, tourist
U.S.A. town, great number of vehicles without of stateliness
plates within the city.
Q. And is that true, did you also observe that within the
downtown area when you were on bike patrol?
A. Absolutely, yes, sir. Even more prevalent downtown
because of the high tourist concentration.
10
Q. High tourist
11
Q. Did you high tourist.
12
Q. Did you, let me ask you this first. Working downtown bike
13
patrol, and seeing cars without of stateliness plates, did you
14
pull them over to see if they had operators had driver's
15
licenses?
16
A. No, sir. It would be ridiculous to pull over a vehicle
17
with an out of state plate just because it is out of state. I
18
mean, like you said, in ill tritown, U.S. A and tourist town
19
U.S.A. there are too many vehicles without of state plates it
20
wouldn't make any sense.
21
Q. What experience would it be with regard to drivers that
22
you ran into not literally but ran into as a traffic police
23
officer with regard to the percentage that had driver's
24
licenses?
25
A. I would say 99.9 percent of people that we stopped that
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
163
are driving a car have driver's licenses. It is almost a
given if you are driving a car you have a license.
Q. Do you pull people over to see if they have a license?
A. No, sir. I do not.
Q. Does the San Antonio Police Department provide police cars
for members of the bike patrol?
A. Yes, sir. We have several vehicles within the bike patrol
unit that we use for different reasons throughout the year.
Q. And what reasons would those be?
10
A. Anything from super inclement weather, rain, super cold
11
one of the ice storms or to take a vehicle to go to the
12
hospital for a patient, prisoner, to the point of taking a car
13
to go eat lunch if you want to.
14
Q. Where are the cars kept?
15
A. They are kept in the parking garage of the bike patrol
16
unit.
17
Q. And you just check those out if you want to go eat lump or
18
something or what?
19
A. Yes, sir.
20
Q. Okay. On September the 7, 2009, were you in a patrol car?
21
A. I was in a patrol car, yes, sir.
22
Q. At 8:15 or 6:15 I am sorry, on that night?
23
A. 1815, yes, sir.
24
Q. And where were you at 6:15 on that -- on September the
25
sent, 20mine?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
164
A. I was parked in a vehicle cutout on the to hundred block
of Losoya Street next next to Fuddruckers.
Q. And what was the purpose for your being there?
A. Original will I planned to go inside Fuddruckers to eat
but when I got inside it was way too busy so I decided I would
leave and go somewhere else that didn't have a line since we
don't have very long or usually able to sit in line and wait
for lunch, you have to get something and, pretty fast because
because you don't know what is going to to happen.
10
Q. So what was your intention at the time that you left the
11
Fuddruckers with regards to whether you were going to find
12
something to eat or not?
13
A. I was going to just go to a different restaurant.
14
A. Until I saw a traffic violation and I figured I would stop
15
that traffic violation and make corrective action and head on
16
to lunch.
17
Q. Well, let's back up a little bit. So you come out of
18
Fuddruckers, get in your car and what what happens?
19
A. I see a vehicle as he passes me in the right lane,
20
Mitsubishi Eclipse, back Mitsubishi Eclipse and it changes
21
lanes without signaling from the right lane too the left lane
22
and continues through the intersection of Commerce Street, guy
23
after it to make corrective action, by the time I get up to
24
him, we are coming up to Market Street which is, it is a weird
25
intersection there are a lot of diagonal streets, pedestrian

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
165
cars in that intersection, trolley stops, so I activate my
emergency lights once we clear the second intersection there
at Market Street and pull him over.
Q. Okay. And why did you wait until you got there to pull
him over?
A. Because I don't want to activate the emergency lights in
the very beginning, there is no telling the person may
immediately freak out, stop in the intersection, be
unresponsive as far as what is going on, there are too many
10
enter successes, too many people, too many cars right there in
11
the intersection, I would much rather have a safer place to
12
clear the intersection, then turn on the lights and that way
13
when he pulls over, we are out of the traffic itself.
14
Q. When you were following the Mitsubishi, did you run it on
15
your computer?
16
A. I did, yes, sir.
17
Q. Okay. And can you explain first of all what the computer
18
is and how -- what it reflects?
19
A. The computer is basically a laptop, but it is connected to
20
software that we can type in a license plate and hit a button
21
and it will tell us a return what the make, model, year of the
22
vehicle is, who the owner is, and what whether the license
23
plates are current and now they didn't have it back now but
24
then it will even tell you if there is current insurance on
25
the car.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
166
Q. Did you find anything that was -- or was that car in
compliance while all the traffic regulations --
A. Everything was proper, it had proper registration, yes.
Q. Did you notice that he had Florida license plates --
A. It did have Florida license plates, yes, sir.
Q. And did you pull that car over pause it had nor license
plates?
A. Absolutely not. I pulled it over for failure to signal a
lane change a.
10
Q. And you observed that failure to signal a lane change?
11
A. Yes, sir. I sure did.
12
Q. After you pulled the car over, first of all, where did you
13
all park?
14
A. We ended up in the large driveway, right in front of the
15
convention center, I think it is called 100 convention way but
16
it is like an overly large driveway in front of the convention
17
center.
18
Q. At the time that you stopped your car, had you made a
19
decision with regard to what sort of, as you say corrective
20
action you were going to take?
21
A. No, sir. Not at that point.
22
Q. Okay. Backing up a little bit, why did you consider it
23
necessary to take corrective action?
24
A. Mainly because you need to signal lane changes, the it is
25
law, but the biggest reason downtown for signalling your

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
167
intention is because, in that particular intersection in
general is because it is such a high volume intersection with
pedestrians and vehicles, the streets are very narrow, and
without signalling your intention in a vehicle people are
always crowding on the curbs down there, stepping off the
curbs, you are liable to end up having a pedestrian VIN
incident or even a vehicular incident, so I needed to stop him
just at least to make some corrective action to let him know,
hey, you need to signal downtown at least.
10
Q. Okay. All right. So when you did pull him over and got
11
out of your car, what happened?
12
A. We stopped over there in front of the convention center, I
13
got out and walked up to his vehicle, his drivers window was
14
down probably two-thirds of the way already, and I could see
15
he had his, what appeared to be his driver's license and
16
insurance in his right hand, and I walk up and introduce
17
myself and almost simultaneously he is like, you are violating
18
my constitutional rights. Almost conduct me off to the fact I
19
can't even say who I am or SAPD. Right after that, I tell
20
him, I stopped you for failure to make a left lane change and
21
again it is just a constant barrage of you are violating my
22
constitutional rights. In and were you able to -- did you ask
23
him more than one time or not to give you his driver's license
24
and insurance?
25
A. I asked him several times to give the driver's license and

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
168
insurance and I could see it was in his right hand so it is
over the console so he is looking to me like this but he has
haze drivers licence and insurance like it is here but you
can't have it type of thing. So several times I of asking him
for it and then I told him I am going to arrest you if you
don't give me your driver's license and insurance.
Q. Do you know why he wasn't giving it to you?
A. I had no idea but I kept getting inundated with you are
violating my constitutional rights and I was just like, little
10
concerns on what was going on with the barrage of
11
constitutional right violation statements coming from him.
12
Q. Well, based on your experience and your training, was he
13
required to give you his license and insurance when you asked
14
for it?
15
A. He is required to give it to me, the state law even says
16
cow must present your driver's license and insurance when you
17
are stopped and a police officers requested requests it.
18
Q. Could you see, could you identify Mr. Rynearson by look
19
peering into his car to see his driver's license?
20
A. No, it is a shorter car, Mitsubishi eclipse is a shorter
21
car, so, and he is holding it over here over the center
22
console so I can see he has it but I can't make out clearly
23
whether it is valid or not.
24
Q. How many times total do you think you asked him for the
25
driver's license and insurance?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
169
A. I asked him several times. At least three times for his
driver's license and insurance. And probably three more times
that I am going to arrest you before finally I said you are
under arrest and he comes out and it is almost a
simultaneously gives it to me as he is on his way out the
door.
Q. So you had warned him that he was going to be arrested if
he didn't give you the driver's license and insurance?
A. After three types of saying I need your driver's license
10
and insurance and he is like you are violating my
11
constitutional rights and going this back and forth, and then
12
I told he I am just going to creates you if you don't give me
13
your driver's license and insurance and he is still refusing
14
two more times of that and then I just say you are under
15
arrest.
16
Q. Was that unusual as far as your experience in making
17
traffic stops?
18
A. The entire stop was unusual. And the numerous thousands
19
of stops I have done, hundreds of thousands, this one was
20
quite unusual in its entirety.
21
Q. Did you know -- did you -- did he offer any explanation as
22
to why he wasn't giving you his license and insurance?
23
A. He wasn't even asking me a statement, he wasn't saying why
24
are you violating my constitutional rights, he said you are
25
violating my constitutional rights, so it didn't, it wasn't

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
170
registering like I was just lake, I don't understand what is
going on in my head, because I explained to him who I was, I
explained to him that I stopped him for failure to signal a
left lane change and it just was a constant barrage of you are
violating my constitutional rights.
Q. So it wasn't being, was he being responsive so your
statements that he violated a traffic --
A. He was very uncooperative throughout the entire incident.
Q. Was there anything about his -- anything he said or his
10
demeanor that indicated to you that the that was going to
11
change?
12
A. At that point, even though it was very fast, the entire
13
incident lasted seconds, several seconds, it still was unusual
14
pause he whenever complied once time until the last time I
15
said that's it you are under arrest and he came out of the
16
car, but before that, he never once complied with any of my
17
commands in you heard Mr. Ryan son testified he thought it was
18
maybe somewhere between ten and 15 seconds, would you agree
19
with that estimation or (.
20
A. I would say it was probably a little longer than that,
21
maybe 30 seconds (rynearson).
22
Q. After he got out of the car, what happened? You know
23
what, let me back up. When you walked up to his car, that
24
were your options as far as what sort of corrective action you
25
could take?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
171
A. All the options ranged from a verbal, you know, you need
to use your turn signal, especially in this environment, there
are so had been people, to a written warning, which wouldn't
have cost any money or any fines whatsoever, to a regular
traffic citation, which would have cost money, depending on
the outcome of it or not. Or arrest. All of those are
options that are granted by the state of Texas.
A. As a police officer.
Q. All right. So do you as a cash did you as a police
10
officer have discretion as to which one of those option dogs
11
employ?
12
A. All the discretion for all of those options was my own.
13
Q. Can you arrest for a minor traffic violation such as that?
14
A. You can. Texas law says you can arrest for all traffic
15
violations except for speeding itself on face value.
16
Q. Did you believe at the time that you told Mr. Rynearson he
17
was under arrest that any of the other options would have been
18
useful?
19
A. I don't think, because of his highly uncooperative nature
20
at that point that any of the other options were reasonable
21
whatsoever.
22
Q. What was his demeanor like?
23
A. He wasn't angry. Just it didn't -- between the two of us,
24
I didn't understand where the barrage of your you are
25
violating my constitutional rights was coming from and he was

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
172
unresponsive and uncooperative with me as far as any of my
demands. So -- but it wasn't -- it didn't get ugly or
anything between the two of us.
Q. Did you become irate?
A. No, not at all.
Q. Well, did you -- when you walked up to his car, did you
introduce yourself?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you never not irate?
10
A. There is no reason to get irate, it was more of a
11
confusion if anything else. All the police -- the three
12
police academies I have been through, the military police, the
13
Kansas say split academy, the San Antonio police academy all
14
of them teach the same way you introduce yourself and explain
15
the violations, hi I am officer Richter -- San Antonio Police
16
Department, I, in there are small lane change but I couldn't
17
get most of this out before he was attacking with me you are
18
violating my constitutional rights so I don't know if he heard
19
some of it because he is just interjecting through my
20
conversation.
21
Q. So what did you -- when he got out of the car, what did
22
you do?
23
A. I put him in handcuffs.
24
Q. And why did you put him in handcuffs?
25
A. Because because at that point he was under arrest.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
173
Q. At the time that -- after you put him in handcuffs, what
did you do?
A. I walked him back to my car, to the patrol car, put him in
the back seat.
Q. And was there a point at which he asked you to retrieve
his wallet?
A. Yes, it was, he was already seat in the the back seat and
he asked me, hey, he told me he has got a computer in the car,
so I needed to go get that and he asked me if I could get his
10
wallet so I went back to his vehicle and picked up his wallet
11
on the front seat.
12
Q. Are you required to go do that sort of stuff?
13
A. No. It was kind of a courtesy. There is no reason not to
14
give him his wallet he will go over to the magistrate's
15
office? Were you mad, I am sorry.
16
A. He may need what is inside his wallet at the magistrate.
17
Q. Okay. Were you mad at Mr. Rynearson at that point?
18
A. There is no reason to be mad at him.
19
Q. Did you feel any malice toward Mr. Rynearson at that
20
point?
21
A. No, sir, no. None whatsoever.
22
Q. Did you feel any malice toward Mr. Rynearson at any point
23
that night?
24
A. No, sir, none at all.
25
Q. Once you got his -- what did you do with his computer in?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
174
A. I stuck it in the police property room. Once we got to
the magistrate's office in at his request.
A. Yes.
Q. And what happened to his car?
A. I secured the car, rolled up the windows, locked the doors
and had it impounded at the police impound.
Q. When you brought his wallet back what did you stay to him,
if anything?
A. I asked him specifically what was it he needed out of his
10
wallet because I seemed like hey can you get my wallet, can
11
you get my wallet I thought there may be something in there
12
that shouldn't be in there.
13
Q. So what did he -- asked him for what?
14
A. He said he had a concealed carry permit in there.
15
Q. And were you surprised at that?
16
A. I was surprised, because the law stated that you need to
17
hand that over with your driver's license when you hand your
18
driver's license to an officer when you are stopped.
19
Q. And obviously he did not do that?
20
A. He did not do that.
21
Q. Okay. Did you ask, what did you ask him then?
22
A. I asked him if he was carrying.
23
Q. And his response was?
24
A. And did he have a weapon and his response was yes, he did
25
is and were were you surprised at that.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
175
A. I certainly was.
Q. Was that -- have you had he other traffic stops where
people have failed to tell you that they were carrying a
loaded handgun on their person?
A. I personally have not ever had anyone not tell me they had
one. Even people that were -- had nothing else to do, that's
the first thing out, hey, officer I just need to let you hoe I
have a gun in the car, because I travel county to county or
whatever the reasoning is, but that's almost the very first
10
thing out of their mouth before they even say here is my lips,
11
it is like there is a gun here, just so you know, don't get
12
alarmed.
13
Q.
14
based on your normal manner of doing things, what would you
15
have done had Mr. Try mere son told you he had a gun in his
16
cargo pants pocket while he was standing next to his car?
17
A. Well, then I would have secured the gun right there,
18
because I already had him handcuffed once he got out of the
19
car almost immediately.
20
Q. Let me back up a little bit. There was some conversation
21
about you saying that Mr. -- asking Mr. Rynearson why he was
22
being so aggressive, there was some testimony about that, do
23
you recall testimony?
24
A. Do you recall that?
25
A. I did, because I didn't understand what his constant.
What was your what would you your -- based on your -- or
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
176
MR. BARRERA: Rajon was about, you know, almost
attacking me with why are you violating my constitutional
rights? And so I asked him multiple times throughout the
incident, why you being so verbally aggressive? And he said,
I am not. But it didn't make sense. None of it jelled.
Q. Were you recording any of that conversation?
A. No. We didn't -- we don't have body cameras at that point
in time, they might have them, I think they are just now going
to start getting some of those.
10
Q. Were you carrying a Taser?
11
A. I did have -- I believe I had a Taser, I can't remember
12
when I got it, but they don't have recording devices on them.
13
Q. All right. So if you -- if Mr. Rynearson thought you were
14
recording the conversation because you were pressing on your
15
Taser, that would be Dar?
16
A. No the face search a bright yellow pistol looking thing so
17
you don't get it confused with a real gun there but there is
18
no recording device on it, basically it is an electric gun is
19
what it is.
20
Q. And did the patrol car that you were in have recording
21
capability?
22
A. No, back then the patrol car, the at least the police bike
23
patrol has no recording capability whatsoever.
24
Q. So did you -- you didn't recording any of this ins at the
25
present time?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
177
A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. Rynearson ever ask you if you were recording it?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Now, as far as the options that you could have employed as
with Mr. Rynearson, how do you make the decision which one to
use?
A. You mean which decision of what corrective action?
Q. Correct.
A. That's all on officer discretion so it all plays out
10
through -- from the beginning of the scenario to the end, but
11
all of those Class C violations are, individual offers
12
individuals make those individual decision organizationn't a
13
daily basis.
14
Q. And were you acting within the course and scope of your
15
employment at the time that you were -- as a peace officer at
16
the time that you were dealing with Mr. Rynearson?
17
A. Yes, sir, I was.
18
Q. And within your discretionary authority with regard to
19
what action you took?
20
A. Absolutely, yes, sir.
21
Q. After you got into the -- well, first of all, when you
22
found out that Mr. Rynearson had a loaded hand fun in his
23
cargo pants pocket, what did you do?
24
A. I secured the gun.
25
Q. Mr. Rynearson said you didn't secure it until you got it

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
178
to the magistrate's office?
A. That is now true, it was secured there at the scene, the
minute he told me, it would be ludicrous for me to say, oh,
let's go you have a gun in the back seat as a prisoner, keep
it and I will see you when we get down to the imagine's office
that is like suicide for me, leaving a pie in the back seat
that just says he has a gun in his pocket. There is to way I
would just say, keep that in your pocket, a and we will see
each other down there.
10
Q. You drove him to the magistrate?
11
A. I did, Your Honor,.
12
Q. And we heard some conversation or some testimony I'm sorry
13
about conversations that took place on the way to the
14
magistrate's office, can you tell us what your recollection of
15
that conversation was, please?
16
A. Well, while we are driving down there then this is the
17
first that I learned he was military too, because he is hike,
18
you know, I am military, and I have been to wars and I have
19
killed people and you better watch out violating people's
20
constitutional rights and I am like, I don't know where that
21
came from, but, okay. So I told him, well you are zero are
22
not the only guy who has been in the military nor the only guy
23
who has killed somebody so calm down, basically.
24
Q. Okay. Did you consider that a threat? A serious threat?
25
A. No, it was just him talking, he was angry, because he was

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
179
going to jail, to the magistrate's office, so I didn't take it
-- even though technically, by the law, it is a terrific
threat he just said I am this the military and killed people
and you party watch out, I didn't arrest him for that
terroristic threat violation, terroristic threat violation.
Q. What did you arrest him for. Only for the violation to
failure to signal left turn, I didn't failure to display
license on demand or arrest him for a failure to display your
concealed carry on demand, I didn't arrest him for the
10
terroristic threats for making the statement I arrested him
11
solely for the initial violation, which was failure to signal
12
left turn lane?
13
MR. RALLS: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
14
THE COURT: Yes. Terroristic ] terroristic.
15
BY MR. RALLS:
16
Q. Let me hand you, Mr. Richter, the police report, which has
17
been marked as Exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit number 1 can you
18
look at that and tell us if that is the police report you
19
wrote as a result of this arrest?
20
A. That is a copy of the original police report that I wrote
21
that day of, that day of the arrest.
22
Q. And does it set forth basically what occurred that
23
afternoon or that evening?
24
A. It does. The narrative of the report is basically what we
25
went over here.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
180
Q. Okay. And can you tell us what the offense, the exact
offense event that Mr. Rynearson was arrested for, please?
A. The exact offense is new traffic, failure to signal.
Q. What does new traffic mean. That means it is not an old,
existing ticket he got before, this is a brand new violation,
not as in the ticket itself, but it is a new violation.
Q. And what was the address of the offense?
A. 200 block of Losoya treat.
Q. And is that right before you get to Commerce or not?
10
A. That is where the violation occurred, right before
11
Commerce, yes, sir.
12
Q. By the way, you heard Mr. Rynearson testify about taking a
13
right hand turn on to Losoya Street and then immediately
14
turning on his left hand signal?
15
A. Yes, sir.
16
Q. When he made -- do you remember what street he turned
17
right on to lo Soy I can't from?
18
A. That would have been college street.
19
Q. Okay. And how far is it from college street to Commerce
20
Street?
21
A. That is a full two blocks.
22
Q. So if he had turned on his right signal immediately, he
23
would have actually -- I am sorry, turned on his left signal
24
immediately, he would have gone through another intersection
25
before he got to Commerce?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
181
A. Yes, sir. He would have upon through Crockett street.
Q. Mr. Okay. And are you certain Mr. Richter at the time
that he he went there 2 intersection of Commerce and Losoya he
did not have those -- or strike that. I am sorry. Are you
certain at the time that he -- you saw him change lanes from
the right lane to the left lane on lo soy I can't street
before Commerce Street that he did not have his left turn
signal on?
A. There is no doubt in my mine he did not signal that lane
10
change from right to left.
11
Q. And was that -- that was significant to you because of the
12
congestion at that intersection?
13
A. Significant because of the high pedestrian Volta
14
intersection, along with a high vehicle concentration, the
15
combination and the short distances between the two
16
intersections of Commerce and Losoya and Market, it is very
17
short span so it is the entire layout of that area is
18
extremely dangerous both for people and cars.
19
Q. Okay. Now, looking at Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1, does
20
that reflect the conversation, your recollection of the
21
conversation that was had wean you and Mr. Rynearson on the
22
way to the magistrate's office?
23
A. Yes. It is a very -- almost direct writing of that we
24
talked about right here.
25
Q. Okay. Can you read it to us, please?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
182
A. Yes, sir. I will. It size while on duty as zapped duty,
I was park to the cut out space in the 200 block of Losoya
street.
Q. I am sorry. I am sorry. I just mean the conversation
that you had on the way to the magistrate's office.
A. Zero.
A. Oh, or. To the magistrate's office. Okay. That
conversation that I actually wrote in the report it says while
being transported to the magistrate's office, the arrested
10
person, AP, which would be Mr. Rynearson told me he was
11
military and he had fought in wars and killed people, that I
12
better watch out while violating constitutional rights. Then
13
I wrote the A . Was booked for the traffic violation.
14
Q. And that is the person time that you knew he was even in
15
the military?
16
A. That's first time I knew he was military.
17
Q. When you got no the financial's office, what happened?
18
(AP).
19
Q. I processed him into the magistrate's office, processed
20
the report for the booking, and then took his personal
21
property over to the property room right next door, placed it
22
in there.
23
Q. Once you book him into the magistrate's office, do you
24
have any additional contact with him?
25
A. That is the end of the contact we had.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
183
Q. Okay. So how long a period of time were you and in the
Rynearson together that evening?
A. It is possible 45 minutes to an hour. I think that was
the most.
Q. And a at any time, did you can act -- did you feel
maliciously toward Mr. Rynearson?
A. No, no. It wasn't anything personal. I just didn't
understand where he was coming from with this constitutional
rights barrage to me, when it was obvious that this was a
10
traffic violation and a specifically bad part of an
11
intersection downtown to be doing something like that, and it
12
just -- I don't know where he was coming from, honestly.
13
Q. In the thousands or hundreds of thousands of contacts a
14
that you have had with civilians or citizens, during your time
15
on traffic, did you have people question the reason that they
16
were stopped?
17
A. Oh, sure, yeah, all the time. People want to know why
18
they are stopped, we tell them why they are stopped and
19
sometimes they still don't -- wait, it might have been another
20
car and you will explain to them but I didn't have any kind of
21
opportunity like that to have a conversation about the
22
incident itself as much because he was just uncooperative in
23
barraging me with you are violating my constitutional rights.
24
It was -- it was very one-sided that I was like, demanding for
25
his driver's license and insurance, and within seconds we are

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
184
going from this barrage to finally I am just like, okay, he is
uncooperative, we will just go straight to jail with this.
Q. Mr. Richter I think that's all the questions I have for
you right now, thank you, sir?
A. Yes, sir. Thank you.
THE COURT: Any cross?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
CROSS EXAMINATION
10
BY MR. MALDONADO:
11
Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Richter?
12
A. Hi, sir.
13
Q. Good to see you again, sir?
14
A. Yes, sir. You too.
15
Q. You and I met before, correct?
16
A. We have, yes, sir.
17
Q. How many -- the last division that you worked for with the
18
San Antonio Police Department was the bike patrol, correct.
19
That is correct, yes, sir.
20
Q. And how many years were you with bike patrol?
21
A. I believe it was 14 years.
22
Q. Fourteen years. And I was paying attention to something
23
else so I apologize while you were testifying is it my
24
understanding that you recently retired?
25
A. I did retire, February of this year.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
185
Q. Congratulations, sir?
A. Thank you.
Q. (Period.
Q. And I didn't hear correctly did you retire as -- were you
the captain of the downtown --
A. No, no, I was patrol officer in the bike patrol division,
27 years on the police department.
Q. Okay. (Downtown bike patrol).
Q. And I think I heard you cell when you said, you can't,
10
correctly you said you can't simply arrest someone to check
11
their licenses, correct?
12
A. I can't arrest them to check their license?
13
Q. I'm sorry, let me go back. You can't stop a car simply so
14
see if the car has a license S that what you said?
15
A. You need some reasonable cause, probable cause, you just
16
can't say, eenie mean any mine any know I am checking you
17
today.
18
Q. The meeny, miny, moe you can't do that?
19
A. You can don't that.
20
Q. You also can't arrest you also can't stop a car simply
21
because they have, you know, Alex, Alex Alabama license mates
22
and you want to check whether they have a license?
23
A. Absolutely not.
24
Q. Even if you hate their football team?
25
A. I love Alabama but, regardless, you can't stop an out of

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
186
state vehicle because it has got out of state plates unless
the plates are ex-paired, but just because of the state
itself, that is not a violation.
Q. Right. And so would you agree with me that five jury
beliefs Mr. Rynearson, that you said that you stopped him
because of his Florida license plates to check his driver's
license that that would be illegal?
A. Can you rephrase the question, sir?
Q. Sure. If the jury beliefs Mr. Rynearson that you stopped
10
his car because of his Florida tags and to check whether he
11
had a driver's license, that that would be illegal?
12
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to object on the
13
the basis that is a credibility question, first of all with
14
regard to the jury, secondly it calls for a legal conclusion.
15
16
17
THE COURT: That is love ruled. That is rover

ruled.
THE WITNESS: If they are the understanding that I
18
merely stopped him because he was driving a car that had
19
Florida plates?
20
MR. MALDONADO: I understand. My question is, if
21
the jury beliefs that you stopped Mr. Rynearson's car because
22
of the Florida license plates, that would have been ill,
23
correct.
24
A. That would have been wrong, yes.
25
Q. Well, not just wrong, illegal?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
187
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. Now, is it -- you understood that as a police
officer you have awesome powers, right?
A. I don't know what awesome, but you enforce the law.
Q. You can enforce law. I can't enforce the law, correct?
A. I can't anymore either.
Q. That is correct. And so the state of Texas gives police
officers like when you were a police officer the awesome power
to stop someone and say, I think you just violated the law,
10
correct?
11
A. They give you authority to do that, I don't know -- you
12
are --
13
Q. Authority, power?
14
A. Your opinion on whether it is awesome or not and mine is
15
just it is an authority to enforce the law, as it is written.
16
Q. I well I mean you are the only -- as police officers, you
17
are -- you are about the only individuals in the city that
18
have that coercive power to stop someone from walking if,
19
correct, because you believe a violation happened?
20
A. If you are violating the law, certainly, yes.
21
Q. If you believe a law was violated?
22
A. Not if you believe it, there has got to be some reasonable
23
or probable cause to -- for you to stop somebody,.
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: Right.

A. Not just on a whim.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
188
Q. Right. But you don't turn to your neighbor next door and
a pedestrian next door hey do you agree with me that a law was
violated? You make a decision and exercise your discretion?
A. Yes.
Q. -- a law was violated I am stopping you, right?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And it is the law, correct, that you can arrest someone
for a Class C violation, correct?
A. It is state law that you can arrest for all Class Cs
10
except for speeding.
11
Q. And, you know, even simply jaywalking, you can take
12
someone to the magistrate's office for that, correct?
13
A. You could.
14
Q. And I don't suppose you did that all the time when you
15
were working, that you took ever to jail that -- where you saw
16
a violation?
17
A. Did I personally? No.
18
Q. No. You would be a pretty busy man if you were doing
19
that?
20
A. We would be way too busy.
21
Q. Right. I mean, this is why this case is so bizarre, as
22
Mr. Ralls put it that for a Class C violation, an individual
23
has been jailed for six hours, you agree that that is bizarre,
24
right?
25
A. I don't believe that it is bizarre that he was in jail for

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
189
six hours, I believe it is bizarre of his behavior towards me
during this whole incident.
Q. Well, we will get to the behavior, but maybe we should
clear up something for the your. He never cursed at you,
correct?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. He never made any threatening motions at you correct?
A. Not physical.
Q. Well, I can show you your report, Exhibit 1. Did you
10
state anywhere in there that you were -- that he made a
11
physical threat against you?
12
A. No, I said no physical.
13
Q. That he made a verbal threat against you?
14
A. Yes, I wrote in here he made a verbal threat.
15
Q. And you and I had a -- were at a deposition, right?
16
A. Yes.
17
Q. And I asked you that question, were you threatened by this
18
statement and do you recall what your answer was?
19
A. Over.
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to -- page, line

and question.
MR. MALDONADO: I will see if he is going to deny
it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: No, he wants to follow page and line.
Ryan test test Rynearson test test Rynearson test test Losoya
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
190
1
2
test test the practice strokes.

MR. MALDONADO: I will continue, Your Honor.
BY MR. MALDONADO:
Q. Did you issue him a citation for threatening you?
A. No. No. It was availed threat, I didn't take it.
Q. Did you report it to your supervisor?
A. No, I didn't need to.
Q. I mean you agree with me that making a threat to a police
officer is far more serious than failing to signal a lane
10
change, right?
11
A. If it is not availed threat.
12
Q. Well, I mean, you were the recipient of this alleged
13
threat. And you have been out when you were a police officer
14
out in the streets would you agree with me that making a
15
threat to you is far more serious than failing to make a lane
16
change?
17
A. Not if the threat itself is not serious, that's what I am
18
saying, if he makes it availed let to me that I don't take it
19
to be serious then it is not anymore extreme than failure to
20
signal a lane change.
21
Q. Okay so you did not, when he told you something to the
22
effect that I have killed men, I have shot men and I have been
23
shot at, and a far better men, you know, have died for the
24
Constitution, a from what I understand from what you are
25
saying you didn't take that a as a personal threat? You

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
191
didn't take that as a personal threat?
A. Even though he said it to me he wasn't saying you and I we
are going to meet tomorrow when and I am taking you out, I did
not take it like that. It was a guy that was upset because he
has to go to the magistrate's office.
Q. I just want to be clear you didn't personally take that as
a threat?
A. No.
Q. Okay.
10
A. Not a serious threat.
11
Q. On September 7, 2009, Mr. Rynearson was not speeding,
12
right?
13
A. No, sir.
14
Q. And you didn't hear him blasting loud music, correct?
15
A. No, I did not.
16
Q. And you didn't see him weaving in and out of the traffic
17
lanes on Losoya, correct?
18
A. I did not.
19
Q. As if like, you know, you have seen probably intoxicated
20
people drive, he didn't seem to you to be intoxicated?
21
A. He was not intoxicated, no, sir.
22
Q. Anything unusual about that car when he was driving down
23
Losoya?
24
A. Nothing other than it failed to signal a lane change.
25
Q. I understand, and the other fact was that it had Florida

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
192
license plates, right?
A. That is not really unusual in San Antonio.
Q. So -- and when you pulled behind -- once you had initiated
a stop, which is you turned on your emergency lights and
Mr. Rynearson pulled on to convention way, and you pulled up
behind him, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And once you ran his license plate numbers, you already
knew there were no outstanding warrants for him or for that
10
car?
11
A. It tells us a little bit. It can't be exact, but it tells
12
us some of that stuff.
13
Q. Did you have any reason to suspect that there was
14
something dangerous about Mr. Rynearson there?
15
A. No, not at all.
16
Q. Although you were bike patrol, you were in a car?
17
A. Correct.
18
Q. Why were you in a car again?
19
A. To go eat.
20
Q. Where was the car -- where did you get the car from?
21
A. The bike patrol parking garage.
22
Q. And where is that?
23
A. At that point in time, it was 240 East Houston.
24
A. It has since moved.
25
Q. And you had gone to get the cars to go eat at Fuddruckers?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
193
A. I had stopped at Fuddruckers to get something to eat and
they were too crowded so I left.
Q. Okay.
Q. Where was your bike?
A. Back at the office.
Q. How long had it gone without you eating.
Q. Was it your lunch hour or dinner time?
A. How long had I gone? A we get a 30-minute, where we can
clock out and eat dinner or lump or whatever you want to call
10
it, eat some food.
11
Q. And that was your 30 minutes?
12
A. Well, I hadn't clocked out yet. That's why I was trying
13
to find a place where I could eat without a line because it is
14
only 30 minutes.
15
Q. Once you finished running the checks in your cars, you
16
exited the police car and walked over to Mr. Rynearson's car,
17
correct?
18
A. Yes, sir.
19
Q. And (in your car) and there is a dispute, you say that,
20
you know, you identify yourself. Mr. Rynearson never heard
21
that, but you clearly heard him say, why did you stop me,
22
correct?
23
A. He didn't say why did you stop me. He said you are
24
violating my constitutional rights initially that was the
25
barrage coming at me.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
194
Q. Percentage).
Q. Practice stroke.
Q. If he had his driver's license and insurance documents on
his hand, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. (and he had.
Q. And in your conversation with him, happened very fast,
correct?
A. The entire thing was very fast.
10
Q. Now, let me ask you again. When you approached the
11
vehicle, he asked you why did you stop me; isn't that true?
12
A. No stir. When I approached the vehicle, I stated who I
13
am, officer Rick San Antonio Police Department and immediately
14
he tells me, you violating my constitutional rights, at the
15
same time I am telling him I am stopping you for making an
16
illegal left lane change, and it is just going from there.
17
Q. So are you certain that Mr. Rynearson was not holding his
18
driver's license and his proof of insurance and that he asked
19
you why did you stop me? You never heard him say that?
20
A. No the very first thing out of his mouth was you are
21
violating my constitutional rights.
22
Q. Did he later -- let's say the second thing out of his
23
mouth did he tell you why did you stop me?
24
A. I am sure he probably did, and I explained to him that I
25
stopped him for failure to signal a left lane change but the
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
195
barrage was you are violating my constitutional rights, not
really wanting to know why we are there, but just a constant
one-liner of you are violating my constitutional rights.
Q. Right. But, you know, assume for me for a second first
that if -- if he in fact asked you, the first question he
asked you why did you stop me?
A. That was no it is first question.
Q. Please assume for me for a second that fact, if he asked
you why did you stop me, and if you gave the reason that it
10
was because he had Florida license plates and you wanted to
11
check, cow -- you wanted to check his driver's license, I
12
think the next question from him would have been, that is not
13
-- that is not good cause to Menino, would you agree with me?
14
15
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am going to object, calls

support speculation. It is compound and.
16
17
MR. MALDONADO: It is a theoretical question, Your

Honor.
18
19
THE COURT: But it is compound. You are going to a

going to need to break that up.
20
21
BY MR. MALDONADO:
22
Q. Would you agree with me, can you accept the proposition ..
23
Menino ..
24
Q. -- can you accept in the beginning the proposition that he
25
could have asked -- the first question to you, presented to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
196
you the first question, why did you stop me? Can you accept
that?
A. I can't accept it because that is not what happened, sir.
Q. I understand, but we immediate for the jury to see an
alternate version. Can you accept that that is a possibility
that he could have asked cash?
A. So you are making up a up a story and you want me to free
to it.
Q. No actually I am trying to figure out what your story is,
10
sir, so you have to answer my?
11
Question: Yes or no, can you accept that there is a
12
possibility that that could have happened.
13
A. I don't accept that.
14
Q. And so in a matter of seconds, he is asking you why did
15
you stop me, you say you asked him for his driver's license
16
and insurance, correct?
17
A. I did, yes.
18
Q. How many times?
19
A. Three times.
20
Q. And this all happens very quickly, right?
21
A. Very quickly.
22
Q. And.
23
Q. And all of a sudden you asked him to get out of the car
24
and he is under arrest, correct?
25
A. And I schools asked also asked him three times or stated

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
197
to him three times if who uh don't give it to me you will be
under arrest so --
Q. So did you ever say in your report that that exchange took
30 seconds?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And you and I had.
Q. No. And you and I had a meeting where you answered
questions in a deposition, correct?
A. Yes, sir. We did.
10
Q. And you -- and you agreeing today that it all happened in
11
a matter of seconds, correct?
12
A. It did all happen in several seconds, yes.
13
Q. So I just wanted to, you know, -- how long does it take to
14
ask four or five times give me your I am D, your driver's
15
license, and your proof of insurance and then he is telling
16
you, you know, why did you stop me? Confirm that you stopped
17
me for an illegal reason. You know, if it all happened -- can
18
you appreciate if it all happened in a matter of seconds that
19
that exchange probably was much shorter than what we are
20
hearing from you?
21
A. I believe everybody here, your client and myself, we were
22
there, we both agree it happened very fast and several
23
seconds. If you are trying to pinpoint an exact number of
24
seconds --
25
Q. He never told you I am not giving you my driver's license,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
198
correct?
A. No, he never said that.
Q. He never yanked them there your hand, did he?
A. No, he did not.
Q. He never held them over here sort of lime like I did with
my little brother so see he see if he could reach kind of
taunting me?
A. He did have it on his right side of the body over the
console the furthest away from me.
10
Q. And he was having a conversation with you about it?
11
A. That is correct.
12
Q. And he was about to hand it to you?
13
A. Impossible he was.
14
Q. Well he had it in his hand and about to hand it to you?
15
A. I don't believe he was.
16
Q. (I don't believe he was not impossible).
17
Q. You didn't arrest Mr. Rynearson because he didn't -- he
18
didn't tell you about his concealed carry permit, correct?
19
A. No, I did not.
20
Q. That didn't go into any of your decision to arrest him,
21
correct?
22
A. Negative.
23
Q. (Misstroke up above) once Mr. Rynearson was out of the
24
vehicle, you had him turn around to face the vehicle and
25
handcuff him, correct?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
199
A. That is correct.
Q. You didn't pat him down, correct?
A. No, I did not.
Q. You didn't check to see whether he was carrying knives or
a gun?
A. No, I did not.
Q. When you walked him over to the car, to the police car, he
didn't push against you, did he?
A. No, we didn't have any a kind of interaction like that.
10
Q. While in the car, in the police car, did you write out the
11
citation?
12
A. I did not write a citation.
13
Q. You heard testimony here that you offered, you gave
14
Mr. Rynearson one last chance if he signed the citation. You
15
made that offer to him, correct?
16
A. No, I did not. He stated that, I didn't state that.
17
Q. He didn't have the power to write his own citation,
18
correct?
19
A. No, sir.
20
Q. Mr. Rynearson never told you that he would disregard the
21
-- whatever citation or ticket you would have issued to him?
22
A. I never issued him a ticket because I was taking him to
23
the magistrate's office.
24
A. I didn't need a ticket.
25
Q. Mr. Rynearson was a person who told you check my wallet

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
200
for my concealed carry permit, correct?
A. He asked me to get his wallet, and he told me he had a
concealed carry license in the wallet.
Q. And did you find it there?
A. I sure did, yes.
Q. And did you at that point -- you confirmed whether he was
carrying, correct?
A. Yes, sir, I asked him.
Q. And you department remove didn't remove the weapon from
10
him at that point, did you, correct?
11
A. I did remove the weapon from him.
12
Q. Are you certain about that?
13
A. I am certain.
14
Q. Okay. So one of the pieces of evidence that we have of
15
what happened that day is that report that you prepared for
16
us. Can you look over it and confirm that you put in that
17
report that you removed the weapon from him?
18
A. I did not write that in the report.
19
Q. Are you sure? I mean I can give you some time to look at
20
it?
21
A. I have it right here.
22
Q. So just today, you are telling us, six years later, that
23
you did remove the weapon from Mr. Rynearson at the scene on
24
convention way and not like he says at the magistrate's
25
office?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
201
A. Correct.
Q. Did you report the concealed weapon to your supervisor?
A. No, sir. I don't need to do that.
Q. Did you report it anywhere?
A. I don't need to do that either.
Q. You didn't write him up for that either, for failing to
present to you his concealed carry, permit, correct?
A. I did not, I only booked him for the one violation of
failure to signal lane change.
10
Q. You didn't issue him a citation for failing to give you
11
his driver's license and his proof of insurance, correct?
12
A. I didn't book him for that either.
13
Q. And you didn't arrest him or issue him a citation for
14
making a threat to you, correct?
15
A. I didn't book him for that either.
16
Q. And only now are you saying that you -- only after he
17
challenged you for the reason why you stopped him did you say
18
it was because of this alleged failure to signal, correct?
19
A. That's wrong.
20
Q. Now, one last thing. I didn't understand of your
21
testimony earlier, did you say that Mr. Rynearson almost
22
attacked you?
23
A. No, sir. I didn't say that.
24
Q. Other than questioning your authority to stop him, was he
25
disrespectful towards you?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
202
A. He didn't really question my authority. He just kept
making that statement of you are violating my constitutional
rights. He wasn't questioning my authority. He just kept
making that statement over and over and over.
Q. Well, no, he did ask you too, why did you stop me?
A. And I told him, yes.
Q. Okay. So asking you why you stopped him, that is
questioning your authority, would you agree with me?
A. No, that is not questioning my authority, that is asking
10
why she being stopped, not questioning my authority as a
11
police officer.
12
Q. Well, why did you exercise your power or authority to stop
13
him? You appreciate that?
14
A. Yes. I answered his question, sure.
15
16
MR. MALDONADO: I have no further questions, Your

Honor.
17
THE COURT: Anything else by redirect?
18
MR. RALLS: No further questions, Your Honor. Thank
19
20
you.
THE COURT: You may step down, thank you, sir.
21
THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
22
THE COURT: Any other witnesses.
23
MR. RALLS: No, Your Honor, defendant rests.
24
THE COURT: Defendant rests. Ladies and gentlemen,
25
you have now -- pardon me is there going to be any rebuttal?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
203
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you have now heard
all the evidence you are going to hear in this case. It is
going to take me a little while to work with the lawyers on
drafting the jury charge here for you all to consider. And we
still need to have closing arguments. It is already pushing
4:00 o'clock. So at this point I know you probably would like
to wrap this up, but it is going to be a late night if we
continue to do all of this and it will be a late break. So I
10
am going have you return tomorrow morning at 9:00. That way
11
you can start fresh. So at 9:00 o'clock tomorrow what you can
12
expect to hear is the closing arguments from the lawyers, and
13
my instructions on you on what the law is to apply and then
14
you will deliberate. Of course, how long you all want to
15
deliberate is entirely up to you. But I would anticipate for
16
planning purposes that you will probably finish by tomorrow.
17
Again, same instructions to you that I told you earlier. No
18
homework. Don't get on a computer tonight, don't get on your
19
smart phone tonight and start fang finding out what the law is
20
or what you think the law is, believe it or not everything on
21
the Internet is not right, so I will be pissing you all the
22
law that you need to know, and the lawyers havoid you all the
23
facts that you need to know, and so no homework. Your only
24
job is to go home safely tonight and return safely tomorrow
25
morning at 9:00 o'clock. All rise for the jury.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
204
COURTROOM SECURITY OFFICER: All rise for jury.
(Jury leaves courtroom.).
THE COURT: Please be seated. I am going to make a
few -- I have been working on the jury charge as we have been
at it here. I am going to make a few changes a here.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor,.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RALLS: I'm sorry but may I reurge my motion?
THE COURT: Oh, go ahead.
10
BY MR. RALLS:
11
Q. Actually can I just adopt my previous motion or do I need
12
to --
13
THE COURT: No. You don't need to restate it again.
14
MR. RALLS: Okay.
15
THE COURT: Any other points that you want to raise?
16
THE COURT: I will only hear arguments on new
17
points?
18
19
20
MR. RALLS: No, Your Honor, I don't have any new

points change punctuation.
THE COURT: Yes. So there are factual issues here
21
on both the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment
22
violations. And so to that extent that motion is denied. The
23
punitive damages. I was going to provide you an opportunity
24
to find new law, do you want to make any new arguments?
25
MR. MALDONADO: You were, I just -- I don't question

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
205
that the Court, but reading the proposed pattern jury
instruction that I submitted, I am sure it came mostly from
the Fifth Circuit and the standard is malicious or reckless
disregard and it explains what maliciousness is, and then it
explains what reckless disregard is, and if I understand the
Court's ruling is that we have to show Mallace, then malice I
would like the opportunity to brief that.
THE COURT: Yes. I have been pondering -- I have
been rereading too while we are up here. So I think the
10
standard is maliciousness or reckless disregard. So there is
11
no evidence of maliciousness, I still think I am correct about
12
that. Where is the evidence of reckless disregard?
13
MR. MALDONADO: Yes. The evidence is, again, Your
14
Honor, if the jury accepts Mr. Rynearson's version of the
15
facts and disbeliefs Mr. Richter, then we have a situation
16
where a police officer who knows what the law is, that, one,
17
they can't stop someone for out of stateliness plates, and to
18
check their driver's license, and then that the individual
19
asks are or questions what the officer did, and the officer
20
retaliates by arresting him then we have an officer who knows
21
what the law is, knows what the individuals federal rights
22
are, you know, to not be subject to an illegal stop,
23
automobile stop, not be subject to an illegal arrest, not be
24
subject to retaliation, for speech and be arrested without
25
probable cause, I believe that is the evidence sufficient to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
206
submit the issue to the jury that punitive damages may be
warranted.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I don't think there is any
evidence that -- of maliciousness or reckless disregard. I
mean.
THE COURT: Okay I agree with you on maliciousness.
I mean but the rec lis disregard I think Mr. Maldonado did
give a correct recitation so why doesn't it go to a jury?
10
11
MR. RALLS: There is just no flash -- Your Honor,

under that definition, it could go to the jury.
12
THE COURT: Yes. I believe so too. I am going to
13
reconsider my previous position. Now, I would be frankly
14
surprised if the jury does even award punitives, but it is an
15
issue that goes to the jury. And so we will keep that in.
16
Now, I am going to go back to chambers and finish revising
17
this jury charge. Print out copies for you all. And then
18
give you time to read and make objections. So we will is have
19
a jury charge conference tonight before you leave. So feel
20
free to take a break for amount ten or 15 minutes. But stick
21
around here, because I want to confer with you on the charge.
22
MR. MALDONADO: Well, I think we will have to do it
23
tomorrow, Your Honor, but I know the Court is working on the
24
charge, we may have proposed instructions, does the Court wish
25
for us to submit them this evening or bring them tomorrow

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
207
morning?
THE COURT: Well, I wanted to wrap up the charge
tonight, that way we go straight into closing arguments
tomorrow morning. Well straight into me instructing them on
the law and then recognizing you all for closing arguments.
So --
7
8
MR. MALDONADO: I can give you a preview of the two

issues that -- if the Court --
THE COURT: I mean, I think it would be much more
10
beneficial for me just to give you what I am proposing, you
11
all take a look at it, I will entertain comments and then
12
based upon your commentsly see whether I need to tweak it
13
further, and then once I get to a draft that I am comfortable
14
with of it being final then I will hear any objections. So
15
that is how I intend to proceed tonight unless that poses a
16
problem.
17
MR. MALDONADO: That's fine, Your Honor.
18
MR. RALLS: That's fine.
19
THE COURT: Why don't you take a 15-minute break and
20
I will be out.
21
(Brief recess.)
22
(Brief recess.) test test test test test test test
23
test (I believe it was juror Isaac that came up to the bench)
24
U.S.A. test test practice strokes.
25
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. I guess

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
208
let's take this sections by sections first. Any objections or
comments to pages 1 through the first line of page 5? The
general stuff? Any additions, deletions, edits?
MR. MALDONADO: On page 4 -- on page, 4, Your Honor,
there were no experts so I am not sure an instruction on that
is needed.
THE COURT: Yes. You are right about that. Thank
you. So we are going to delete that. Anything else on pages
1 through top of 5?
10
11
MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, I don't know. I mean,

Mr. Richter is not a law enforcement officer now, so --
12
THE COURT: This is kind of a strange scenario so
13
even though he superintendent a current law enforcement
14
officer it is the same thing as applying, really I meanly
15
leave it up to you all do you quantity it in or out, Your
16
Honor.
17
MR. MALDONADO: I want it in.
18
MR. RALLS: I want it out.
19
THE COURT: It stays in. Anything else on pages
20
1 through the top of 5?
21
22
THE COURT: Okay. Then let's start off with the
23
unlawful seizure and arrest section. Any comments, edits,
24
deletions to that section?
25
MR. MALDONADO: No, Your Honor. 5 through -ROUGH TRANSCRIPT

209
THE COURT: 5 through the middle of 7.
MR. MALDONADO: 7. I don't have any objections
right now, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything from the defendant?
MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, I would like court to
include an instruction on -- with regard to the failure to
display license under 521024 of the Texas transportation code.
There is a definition in here as opposed to just 545104 A.
THE COURT: Yes, the reason I have done that,
10
though, was your client's testimony was that the sole reason
11
he was arrested was for the failure to signal a lane change.
12
13
14
MR. RALLS: I know but he could have been arrested

for the other -THE COURT: But he could have been arrested for
15
that, yes, but that's not why he was arrested. I mean, it
16
came from your client's mouth.
17
18
THE COURT: Yes. To that extent, your objection is

noted but overruled.
19
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT: Anything else on that section?
21
MR. RALLS: Which was just 5 -- down to qualified
22
23
immunity, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No. I am just dealing with unlawful
24
seizure and arrest so the next section would be First
25
Amendment retaliation. So anything more on unlawful seizure

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
210
and arrest?
THE COURT: Okay. Let's go Po go to the First
Amendment retaliation. Middle of 7 through middle of 8.
Anything on that one?
7
8
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, for the defendant, I still

would object that there is no evidence of any evidence, I am
sorry there is no evidence of any -- that Mr. Rynearson or any
10
reasonable person would have had their -- nobody would have --
11
the action of defendant Richter would not have a chilled
12
chilled a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to
13
engage in that activity. There is no evidence of that.
14
MR. MALDONADO: I think -- I am sorry.
15
MR. RALLS: So I just don't think there is --
16
MR. MALDONADO: The retaliatory act here is the
17
arrest itself. And I think most people would hold that that
18
act would be sufficient to chill a person of ordinary
19
firmness, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT: Yes. No. There is a fact issue on that
21
and there is very little but there is some evidence to support
22
the claim, so that stays in.
23
MR. MALDONADO: The only -- on 3, Your Honor, I feel
24
that -- I believe that the wording of substantially motivated
25
introduces a higher burden that is not required by case law.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
211
It is either a substantial or motivating factor.
THE COURT: I left the civil PJC book back in my
office. I believe -- let me go on Heine and get it, if I can.
(Revocation) revocation practice strokes.
5
6
THE COURT: While I am waiting to get a connection

here forget by a books, Mr. Ralls.
MR. RALLS: Well Your Honor, well the Keenan case I
cited earlier yes he is 295, third two, 92, the third element
under First Amendment retaliation is pretty much exactly what
10
you stated here, the defendant's adverse actions were
11
substantially motivated against the plaintiff's exercise of
12
constitutionally protected conduct. That's right out of the
13
case.
14
15
16
MR. MALDONADO: Could I would like to take the

evening to research the matter and submit authority.
THE COURT: You are welcome to do that, but I mean,
17
-- so we can show up at 8:30 and do one last tackle at that,
18
but we are having arguments at 9:00. I will tell you that.
19
MR. MALDONADO: I would say that not looking -- my
20
proposed ones, Your Honor, James versus Texas Collin County,
21
speech must be a substantial or motivating force.
22
23
MR. MALDONADO: Will we be provided Wifi in the new

courthouse, Your Honor?
24
THE COURT: Oh, -- tweak --
25
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor,.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
212
THE COURT: Yes.
#04: May I look on my phone for case law?
THE COURT: Yes.
#04: Thank you. (Change speaker ID.
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, may I just correct the
citation on Keenan I think I cited it earlier as incorrectly
it should be Keenan versus Tejeda. It is 295, two-third,
252,.
9
10
MR. MALDONADO: 290. 290. (F.3d? Not two-thirds.

It is late.)
11
THE COURT: I am looking without realizing it I left
12
it exactly almost verbatim, the language from Keenan versus
13
Tejeda, (I left it so the language of substantially motivated
14
is in the Fifth Circuit case law. So that is noted and
15
overruled. Anything else? On the First Amendment retaliation
16
part?
17
18
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, only on the third
19
element, Your Honor.
20
THE COURT: Yes. And I have noted that and
21
overruled that. So let's turn to the qualified immunity
22
language now. Any objections, edits, deletions to that
23
section?
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: Is the Court going to -- initially,

Your Honor, I just want to note for the record the Fifth
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
213
Circuit has obviously ruled on this, but we would note for the
record that we don't believe that qualified immunity is a
question for the jury. The circumstances are split on that.
We would ask the Court not to submit a question either in the
instructions or the verdict form and we want a ruling on that,
Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. I tend to agree with you, but
that's not Fifth Circuit law. I also question the submission
of a qualified immunity claim. I wasn't bound by the Fifth
10
Circuit law I would not do it but I am bound by that law so
11
that is noted and overruled. If I was not).
12
MR. MALDONADO: And my second point, Your Honor, is
13
that is whether the Court in its instruction is going to say
14
that it was clearly -- what was clearly established in 2009
15
concerning the Fourth Amendment rights. This is the court
16
going to instruct him on that? It is whether -- the
17
instruction will say it was clearly established -- oh, it
18
does, Your Honor, I am sorry, I apologize.
19
THE COURT: I thought I did have that language.
20
MR. MALDONADO: Yes.
21
MR. RALLS: I don't have any objection to it, Your
22
Honor.
23
THE COURT: Anything else from the plaintiff?
24
MR. MALDONADO: Not at this time, Your Honor.
25
THE COURT: Okay. Then we are on pages 9, 10

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
214
through 12, all the damage sections. Any objections,
comments, edits from the plaintiff?
MR. MALDONADO: On the punitive -- Welton punitive
damages, Your Honor, the factors that should guide the fixing
of the amount, we object to that because it seems to limit the
jury's discretion to consider the circumstances under which
punitive damages should be imposed. It is not only in cases
where there has been deceit, coverup, insult, intended or
reckless injury, and so I am afraid what the jury will say is,
10
they are going to go through each factor and say, well, we
11
really continue think it is here and then, don't think it is
12
here and not consider other factors. We don't know what they
13
saw in the facts that they would find to be a reckless
14
difficult regard of Mr. Rynearson's federal rights and would
15
entitle him to punitive damages.
16
THE COURT: Mr. Ralls?
17
THE COURT: We are on paragraph -- on page 12.
18
MR. RALLS: Right.
19
THE COURT: I mean I see a couple of options here.
20
This isn't the usual kind of case so this is odd. I guess we
21
could change it to say the reprehencability of defendant's
22
conduct and then period. Or I guess the other thing is, this
23
language isn't limiting. It says the reprehencability of
24
defendant Richter's conduct, including but not limited to.
25
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I am happy with taking both

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
215
of those paragraphs out. I don't -- and I think it might be a
comment on the weight of the evidence or -- that it may
suggest to the jury that defendant Richter's conduct was
reprehensible or deceitful or --
THE COURT: Well, that is a third avenue. So we
would delete the if you decide to award punitive damages, all
that language one and two?
MR. RALLS: That is correct, Your Honor.
MR. MALDONADO: I have no objection to that, Your
10
11
Honor.
THE COURT: Now the only thing that may potentially
12
cause that to be an issue later down the road, I don't think
13
we are going to get there, but if the jury did award punitive
14
damages, and it is not in proportion to what the Supreme Court
15
has said there has got to be some ratio.
16
BY #04:
17
Q. Guess we will have to figure that out later. That's the
18
only down side to taking out the language.
19
MR. RALLS: Well I am not averse to leaving number
20
2 in, given that, Your Honor, it is just number one I am
21
really concerned with.
22
MR. MALDONADO: I believe something similar to
23
number -- we submitted something similar to number 2, Your
24
Honor. So I don't think I can object at this point, although
25
I could reconsider but I think for the same concern that the
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
216
Court has expressed I think there has to be language about
proportionality.
3
4
THE COURT: So we -- so we delete paragraph 1, then

and just leave 2? Is that.
MR. RALLS: The that's okay with me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. We will do that.
THE COURT: And then lastly any objections,
9
10
comments, edits to pages 13 and 14.

MR. MALDONADO: I think the law is split, Your
11
Honor, on whether nominal damages must or may be awarded where
12
no compensable damages are awarded. I was reading yesterday
13
some old cases from the seventies and eighties in the Fifth
14
Circuit where the Court seemed to assume that nominal damages
15
pled to naturally when there was no compensable -- when there
16
were no compensation for a fourth -- for a constitutional
17
violation. Some circuits include language that they say it is
18
must. For example, the Third Circuit, and I think that's what
19
we relied on in in doing this research.
20
21
MR. RALLS: Nominal.
22
A. Your Honor, I am sorry. I would rather it not be in
23
there. I don't have a food legal argument for that.
24
25
THE COURT: Well, I have got at least -- I mean in

my mind I have at least to tender a may. The question is, is
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
217
it must? I think that is the issue here. And so if they
don't find actual or compensatory damages, must they award
nominal damages? And that is the legal question.
MR. MALDONADO: I think the cases I have seen, Your
Honor, is that it is odd, where it is sort of reversed here it
is usually plaintiffs who don't want this instruction, because
it is an out for the jury, not to award compensatory damages.
But it is clear from the cases that if a party, like if a
plaintiff requests a nominal damages instruction and the jury
10
finds -- they tans first question yes, there was a
11
constitutional violation, I would is a say 100 percent of the
12
cases, the court cases have held that it was reversible error
13
not to have submitted the instruction to the jury.
14
15
THE COURT: Well I intend to submit an instruction,

but again my question is, is it may or must?
16
17
MR. MALDONADO: And if that is the case I think we

would insist it would be must, Your Honor.
18
19
THE COURT: So what circuit law do you have for

that?
20
MR. MALDONADO: And that I turn to Mr. Gonzalez.
21
#04: Judge, we.
22
Q. Have we have just the Kerry opinion itself, the language
23
in there, both what it says and logically what it implies, the
24
language in Carrie talks about because of the right to
25
procedural due process is quote unquote absolute and because

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
218
of its importance to organized society that due process be
observed the defendants or the plaintiffs in that case were
entitled quote unquote entitled to recover nominal damages,
Judge. And it wouldn't seem to -- it doesn't make logical
sense that if the purpose of these nominal damages is to give
some value to these rights there is a violation, even if it is
a technical violation to hold that the jury at that point can
still say, well, yes there is a violation but there is no whom
natural damages it doesn't seem to comport with what the Kerry
10
lack, the importance to organized society that these rights be
11
scrupulously observed in what Carrie said, Judge?
12
13
THE COURT: CAREY versus pie thus, 435 U.S. 247. It

is Carey) (based upon) based upon) the practice strokes.
14
THE COURT: I am looking at Archie versus Christian
15
a Fifth Circuit case out of 1987. Far versus Cain, FARRAR,
16
1985 case, and all those cases, the Fifth Circuit seems to
17
imply, or it didn't imply it actually states that a plaintiff
18
is entitled to an award of nominal damages for the violation
19
of civil rights even where there is no injury. So it seems to
20
man it seems to mandate an award so I will change that
21
language to must. Before we move on to damages we have
22
something else, Your Honor.
23
THE COURT: Go ahead.
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: Than damages. So we have a proposed

instruction, Your Honor, on presumed damages. And in
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
219
instances of false arrest, some courts have held that in those
cases damages may be presumed and the jury can be asked to
give an amount, and so they are not called nominal damages,
because the amount that are awarded in these jurisdictions is
more than a dollar. And we could -- you know, I guess the
Court could rule on it while I present -- I make the request,
or I could -- we could go ahead and submit one to the Court.
We have, for example, the case of Kerr nine, KERMAN, versus
city of New York, 374 F.3d, 93. And they discussion this
10
issue, Your Honor, at pages 124 through 31. We are aware that
11
Sixth Circuit also has ruled on that, Your Honor, (aware).
12
A. Albeit it in the PLRA context, prison litigation reform
13
but considering that the standards for recovery are so much
14
more demanding under that statute, it would seem that the
15
logic follows that in less demanding litigation like this
16
sort, 1983, that we could also request -- well the Sixth
17
Circuit, they held that they are saying there were presumed
18
damages and an instruction should be given to the jury for
19
example, false arrest claims. (for, for example, I am looking
20
at McClellan, MCCULLOCA versus Glasgow, say, 1980 case out of
21
the Fifth Circuit. And 1983 case, it is talking about an
22
award of some damages may be appropriate based upon jury
23
findings, then it goes on to question substantial amounts
24
cannot be awarded. But then here is the language I am
25
interested in. Any -- 1983 prohibits any but nominal damages

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
220
for presumed but unproven injury. I mean, so there, I mean,
the case seems to stand for the proposition you can get
compensatory damages but if you don't get compensatory damages
then you can get nominal damages but there is no presumed
damages.
MR. MALDONADO: Yes. Your Honor, --
THE COURT: Do you have anything contrary to that?
MR. MALDONADO: So this Second Circuit case is
obviously not from this jurisdiction. But in the Supreme
10
Court case, Memphis, I forget, school district or something,
11
versus extra tour are a or extra tour are a, I don't have the
12
pronunciation correct, that was 1985, 1987 Supreme Court case,
13
which included language about presumed damages where they
14
said, where they repeated what court said and then they said,
15
there may be instances of violations where it is -- you know,
16
it can't be quantified what happened. And the example that
17
they gave there was I think the procedural due process
18
violation, subsequently circuits like the seventh -- like the
19
second and the Sixth Circuit have said, look, in false arrest
20
claims, the person may go to jail for several hours, but there
21
may not be loss of wages. There may not be substantial
22
emotional harm there, but there is no doubt that the person
23
was -- was deprived of loss of liberty so those instances
24
where there is a loss of liberty without a corollary evidence
25
or finding of damages by the jury that damages may be

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
221
presumed. I know is not the law in this circuit, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Right but isn't that the purpose of
nominal damages to satisfy those cases?
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, I concede that that is
what it appears, but some courts have suggested otherwise and
for that reason we are -- we would request that the Court
consider a presumed damages instruction.
THE COURT: Yes. I mean, my limited research at
this point doesn't seem to establish the Fifth Circuit allows
10
for that. Zero to the contrary, I am seeing a lot of language
11
in cases saying that in 1983 constitutional violation nominal
12
damages are presumed to flow, so it seems to suggest that you
13
either get compensatory damages or the jury doesn't award
14
compensatory you get nominal damages and so that objection is
15
noted but -- and that instruction that is requested and noted
16
but will not be included. Anything else --
17
MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, yes, I am sorry to
18
back you up, but on compensatory damages, I guess, is where we
19
20
21
were going to have a limiting instruction regarding -THE COURT: Yes. I think I have done that in the
verdict form, have I not?
22
MR. RALLS: Maybe I missed that.
23
THE COURT: So in question number 13, I say what sum
24
of money, if paid now in cash -- and actually it should say
25
what sum of money, if any, we need to change that, would

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
222
fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiff Rynearson for his
mental anguish and compensatory damages. So you are right, I
did not limit it further as we discussed. For his mental
anguish and compensatory damages what I am struggling with is
the language there I am thinking about mental anguish,
compensatory damages suffered from his seizure or arrest and
then put the date of the incident? Or do you have a better
suggestion?
MR. RALLS: There are several questions that one --
10
have to do with seizure, stop and one is arrest so I am not
11
sure that wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be duplicative, but the
12
only thing that I was thinking is --
13
THE COURT: Or suffered on the date of the incident?
14
MR. RALLS: I was thinking something like do not
15
consider any amount or any -- in considering mental anguish
16
and compensatory damages do not consider any amount for
17
adverse personnel actions or letter of recommendation,
18
something like that, more specific, but that is probably
19
actually I lake your language more and more the I think about
20
it.
21
THE COURT: Suffered on the date of the incident?
22
MR. RALLS: Yes, sir.
23
THE COURT: What what do the plaintiffs say?
24
MR. MALDONADO: I am fine with that, Your Honor.
25
MR. MALDONADO: Are we moving to the verdict form,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
223
Your Honor?
THE COURT: One second here.
MR. RALLS: Can we put only on the date of the
4
5
6
7
8
incident?
THE COURT: And that is what I am trying to get on.
I mean when did he report the injury? Or report the incident?
MR. MALDONADO: I think it was reported the next
day. September 8th, Your Honor.
MR. MALDONADO: Another suggestion, Your Honor.
10
THE COURT: Yes.
11
MR. MALDONADO: In the instructions itself and not
12
on the verdict form the Court could say sort of like Mr. Ralls
13
was saying I am instructing you that for purposes of
14
compensatory damages you should not consider awarding any
15
compensatory damages if you believe that Mr. Rynearson was
16
17
reprimanded at his place of employment.

THE COURT: Well, that is another way of doing it,
18
rather than tampering or editing the verdict form, on page 10,
19
middle of the page, after the first full paragraph under
20
compensatory damages, inserting language there, saying, no
21
compensatory damages should be awarded for any adverse
22
personnel actions that may have been suffered?
23
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: I am fine with that language, Your

Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. We are going to limit it that way
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
224
we are going to include language that says no compensatory
damages should be awarded for any adverse personnel actions
that may have been suffered by plaintiff Rynearson. So that
goes in the middle of page 10.
THE COURT: Any objections to that, Mr. Ralls?
MR. RALLS: Well, I guess his testimony really had
to do with the mental anguish he suffered as a result of
having to report it, so --
THE COURT: And that's why -- that gets to come in,
10
but then nothing else comes in for the jury's consideration.
11
So he gets to say, well I suffered mental anguish because I
12
had to report it but the jury can't consider anything that
13
might have happened as a result of that.
14
MR. RALLS: Well, but the problem with that is, that
15
I mean, how do you distinguish between the mental anguish that
16
he suffered -- okay, as a result of having to report it.
17
Okay. All right. Your Honor,.
18
19
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else on the

instructions?
20
MR. MALDONADO: No, nothing else, Your Honor.
21
22
23
THE COURT: Okay. Let's turn to the verdict form.
24
Let's take these in segments. Any objections, edits,
25
deletions to questions 1 through 4?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
225
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, with regard to question
number 2, the qualified immunity question, I think it should
be worded that -- I think that this puts the burden of proof,
shifts the burden of proof to the defendant the way this is
worded. And that it should be worded as it is in the charge
basically that no reasonable, do you find from a preponderance
of the evidence that no reasonable officer could have believed
that his stop of plaintiff Rynearson was valid or whatever?
9
10
11
12
THE COURT: Do you want to respond to that,

Mr. Maldonado?
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, I think that is a
confusing question. The jury has been instructed (on the
13
definition of qualified immunity. We have got to presume that
14
they know the definition when they are answering this
15
question, and they will be referencing the Court's
16
instructions, I mean that is the same for compensatory damages
17
or for any of the other terms of art that are included in the
18
verdict form. I do not see the argument that it shifts the
19
burden. It is fairly neutral, so I would -- I would object or
20
oppose Mr. Ralls's suggestion.
21
THE COURT: I don't see where it shifts the burden
22
either. That is noted but overruled. Anything on, --
23
anything else on 1 through 4? Into.
24
25
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, just to be more artful on

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
226
the record, what I would prefer on number 2 would be do you
find from a preponderance of the evidence that no reasonable
officer possessing knowledge of clearly established law and
the information known by the defendant Edwin Richter at that
time could have believe that he had probable cause to arrest
Richard Rynearson?
THE COURT: (Could have believed).
THE COURT: I would like to stay as neutral as I can
on the language to the jury. What I am thinking of doing,
10
though, and just because this is so law Laden, on question
11
number 1 I said considering all of the instructions in the
12
jury charge we went do you find, I am going include that same
13
language, considering all the instructions in the jury charge,
14
do you find? I think that will cure any issues. So to the
15
extent you want anything else that is noted but will not be
16
inserted and overruled.
17
THE COURT: Anything else on 1 through 4?
18
MR. RALLS: Well, are you going to consider that
19
preparatory language on -- I mean, insert that language in all
20
of these, then?
21
THE COURT: Well, no. I was going to do it just on
22
1 and 2 and do it on 5 and 6, so everything on the legal part
23
I am going refer them back to the jury charge. But for
24
example, 3 and 4 -- well,.
25
THE COURT: Now I am just -- you know what? We are

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
227
just going to do this globally. I am going to take out that
language in 1, I am going to insert it in the very beginning,
preparatory. So it will read considering all the instructions
in the jury charge, we the jury answer the questions submitted
by the court as follows. And so that will avoid a repetition
every time. Anything else on 1 through 4?
THE COURT: Number 5 through 8. So knife we are
10
going to take out considering all the instructions language
11
and start with do you find. Anything else from the plaintiff?
12
13
14
MR. RALLS: The same thing, just the same objection
15
on number six, the qualified immunity.
16
THE COURT: That is noted and overruled.
17
THE COURT: Moving to 9 through 12, we are going to
18
do the same thing on 9. So it will start with do you find.
19
Any other objections, edits, deletions, 9 through 12?
20
MR. MALDONADO: No, Your Honor. And I just wanted
21
to clarify something. I objected to the qualified immunity
22
instruction. I just want to note for the record I would also
23
object to the submission in the verdict form of the qualified
24
immunity question.
25
THE COURT: That is noted and overruled.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
228
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I would also on question
number ten, I would ask for -- I would object to that and ask
for the instruction that I read previously.
THE COURT: And that is noted and overruled.
Anything else on 9 through 12?
THE COURT: Let's move to the damages, 13 through
10
15. So I just caught my mistake on 13 I say what sum of
11
money, if any, if paid now in cash and the same thing needs to
12
be done on 15 -- well, 15 has got it, never mind. So it is
13
just 13. And so 13 now going to read what sum of money, if
14
any, paid now in cash, would fairly and reasonably compensate
15
plaintiff Rynearson for his mental anguish, compensatory
16
damages suffered only on September 7, 2009?
17
18
19
20
21
THE COURT: Any other objections, edits, deletions

to 13, 14 or 15?
MR. MALDONADO: So after the last any suffered -- is
that what the Court said?
THE COURT: Yes if any is misplace sod what sum of
22
money, if any, if paid now in cash, would fairly and
23
reasonably compensate plaintiff Rynearson for his mental
24
anguish and compensatory damages suffered only on
25
September 7 -- oh, no, no, no, we have already cleaned that

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
229
language up.
BY THE COURT:
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, I thought we had.
THE COURT: You are right. So that language won't
be in there. So it is going to be plaintiff Rynearson for his
mental anguish and compensatory damages question mark.
MR. RALLS: If any, Your Honor, at least --
THE COURT: Well, I got -- I have already included
9
10
11
12
the if any up front.

THE COURT: So now with that said, any -- anything
else on 13, 14 or 15?
MR. MALDONADO: Can I just ask, Your Honor, we have
13
three claims I presume that we could recover on each claim and
14
the Court is -- is essentially guiding the jury to just award
15
for all three claims at once. I don't have the law on me. I
16
can't say that it should be different, but I tend to research
17
it, my sense is it is not fair.
18
THE COURT: What is not fair? That he gets to have
19
the jury give him damages for each of the -- I mean he only
20
suffered one damage. He suffered whatever mental anguish and
21
compensatory damages the jury finds that he suffered because
22
of the activities. I mean, so --
23
MR. MALDONADO: Well --
24
THE COURT: Do you want the jury to award him for
25
each incident, for arrest and then later for the jail?
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
230
MR. MALDONADO: For the stop, for the arrest, and
then separately for the fact that his right to speak up, you
know, a -- he was retaliated again for against for that.
4
5
THE COURT: The difficulty I am having with all of

that based upon how he testified, how did Hebraic -- he didn't
6
7
break that down.

MR. MALDONADO: Well, I would argue, Your Honor,
that he did testify about the indignity of being stopped and
his right being violated when he knows that what the officer
10
said was not cause for stopping him. And then he did testify
11
about the arrest itself and being sent to jail for six hours.
12
Now, I think that -- that distinction I think is clear between
13
the stop and the arrest. I would grant the Court that it is a
14
much more difficult argument to make between the arrest and
15
the First Amendment, because they are sort of -- they are sort
16
of hard to separate but at a minimum I would ask that we be
17
allowed to submit to the jury a separate requests for damages
18
for the stop and the arrest.
19
THE COURT: Do you want to respond?
20
MR. RALLS: Yes, Your Honor. I agree with the
21
Court's initial analysis and that is that there is only -- he
22
only suffered, he is only entitled to be made whole once and
23
this way that is what you are doing with this verdict form.
24
25
THE COURT: He is entitled to be made whole once and

I mean, if it could have been broken down in the evidence
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
231
that, you know, he suffered distinct periods of mental
anguish, if these were like separate dates these occurred I
could see all that but this all of this activity happened
basically in a span of what 20 seconds and then the six hours
is and so I don't know how the jury would be able to start
awarding damages for each independent claim. The other
problem I have is, frankly, and only because the defendant
didn't raise this, is -- and we will see what jury does with
mental anguish an compensatory damages but I was struggling
10
with has he met -- has the plaintiff met the legal standard
11
for mental anguish? And that's another part that, you know --
12
that is going to be difficult for this on appeal, but if it
13
gets that far. The objections are noted and overruled. We
14
are only going to have one global set of questions. Anything
15
else on 13, 14 or 15?
16
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, can I raise it now that --
17
THE COURT: It is too late now? We will take all of
18
this up post jury now but it is too late now. Anything else?
19
20
THE COURT: Let me get you a clean set of documents.
21
22
How much time do you want for jury argument?

MR. MALDONADO: I was intending on walking the jury
23
through the verdict form, Your Honor, so in that sense, I
24
think it will be longer than my opening, so I would ask for 30
25
minutes. I don't really believe it will take me 30 minutes,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
232
1
2
Your Honor. But I don't want to shortchange myself.

MR. RALLS: I am okay with 30 minutes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. Thirty minutes each side. What I
will do is I will first instruct the jury, what I do is I
provide them an individual copy, and so then you will be able
to both argue as the Court said on page 6 or whatever you want
to point to they will have copies in front of them tomorrow
morning. So we will start at 9:00. Jury will be given copies
of the instructions. I will instruct them on the law and then
10
recognize you all for arguments. Thirty minutes on each side.
11
The only exhibit was 1, right?
12
13
14
15
MR. RALLS: That is correct, Your Honor, well, 3,

that is not going to the jury.
THE COURT: Right. So only 1 is going to the jury.
Anything else we need to take up tonight?
16
17
MR. RALLS: Mr.
18
19
20
THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you all stand by and my
21
law clerk will five you all clean copies before you leave.
22
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor,.
23
THE COURT: Yes.
24
MR. MALDONADO: I got this from Ms. Greenup. And if
25
I am interpreting it correctly I don't even think the police

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
233
report went in. It was by agreement nobody -- we didn't
oppose it.
3
4
5
6
7
8
THE COURT: I mean no one formally moved for its

admission. That is a good point.
THE COURT: Do you both agree to move for the
admission or does it stay out?
MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I thought that this morning
whatever we --
THE COURT: You know,.
10
MR. RALLS: I thought it was admitted, basically.
11
THE COURT: I am not sure I made a formal ruling.
12
(Reporter reads back testimony.)
13
THE COURT: So 1 admitted.
14
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Stand by for the
15
final version.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
1
2
3
November 10, 2015. Day 2 of jury trial, Rynearson versus

Richter.
THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated. You
should have been provided a new copies of the jury
instructions and verdict form this morning. On page 7, we
changed question 14, since we stated yesterday that nominal
damages appear to be required under Fifth Circuit law, we
deleted the words if any in that paragraph. And then I want
to point out to you another change we did on the jury
10
instructions. On page 12, when we were talking about the
11
punitive damages, you will recall that there was a
12
paragraph 1 and a paragraph 2 and we deleted one of the
13
paragraphs, but we have also short tend the second paragraph
14
because the remainder of the sentence dealt with issues that
15
weren't involved in this case. And so with that, are there
16
any final objections to the jury charge or the verdict form
17
from the plaintiff?
18
MR. MALDONADO: Other than the objections that we
19
went over yesterday, no, Your Honor. I think I gave to
20
Mary-Kate my page 7, I was having a conversation with your
21
clerk, Your Honor. I am fine with the verdict form, but I
22
think there may be some confusion. If the jury answers yes to
23
the question of qualified immunity, that is, that Mr., officer
24
Richter is qualified to the qualified immunity defense, I
25
don't think the jury is -- I don't think there is an

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
2
instruction there that they don't answer any of the questions
13 through 15. Page 6 says, go to the next page. And as they
go to the next page, if they answered yes to question number
-- to 3, 7 or Len that has to do with legal causation then
they go to 13, but the jury is not told, even in the other
ones, even in the preceding pages, don't even answer number
14.
THE COURT: Let's stop and take a look at that. So
on page 2 of the verdict form, question 2, if they answer yes
10
to qualified immunity, they do not answer questions 3 and
11
4 and they go to the next set of questions.
12
MR. MALDONADO: That's right.
13
THE COURT: That begins on 5, so then on question
14
six, if they answer yes to qualified immunity, they don't
15
answer 7 and 8 and they go to 9. If on ten if they answer yes
16
to qualified immunity they don't answer 11 and 12. (immunity)
17
and -- so then on top of page 7 it says if you answered
18
question numbers, 3, 7 or 11 yes, then answer question 13.
19
They will only answer 3, 7 and 11 if they answered no to
20
qualified immunity. So where is the confusion?
21
22
THE COURT: I mean I know as the dance, but where is
23
it wrong?
24
25
MR. MALDONADO: Right. So they get to page 6, Your

Honor, and if they have answered yes to the question of
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
3
1
2
qualified immunity, they should stop there, correct?

THE COURT: Well, no, because they could have --
they could have answered yes that he got -- he has qualified
immunity of the arrest but could have said no, he doesn't have
qualified immunity to your other two claims.
MR. MALDONADO: That's right -- that's --
THE COURT: I mean, it is unlikely they will do
that, it is either going to be all or nothing, I would think,
but I mean that is remote possibility, isn't it?
10
MR. MALDONADO: I think that -- that is correct,
11
Your Honor. I guess you are right, because they are offered
12
three opportunities to answer the qualified immunity maybe
13
they do 1 and 3 but I don't think it is going to happen, I
14
think it is all or none, the Court is correct. So if they say
15
no to all of them, I don't -- I mean, my sense is that on
16
page 6 it doesn't -- it doesn't instruct them don't go any
17
further if you have answered yes to 2 -- whatever the
18
qualified immunity questions are, 2, 6 and 8 or --
19
THE COURT: Yes. That's why I started at the top of
20
page 7 with if you answered question numbers 3, 7 or 11 yes,
21
so they will only answer those questions if they found there
22
was no qualified immunity.
23
24
MR. MALDONADO: Well, they will only answer question

number 13.
25
THE COURT: Well, they will starting with number 13

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
4
but if they for some reason don't want to give compensatory
damages then they have to answer 14. Right?
THE COURT: So -- and.
MR. MALDONADO: Except they don't answer the nominal
damages question even with -- if qualified immunity has been
found.
THE COURT: Let me stop here, because maybe I am
missing it. Mr. Ralls, do you think -- is this correct or do
10
you think I have erred?
11
MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, I wouldn't think that
12
they would -- that they would answer those questions if they
13
find qualified immunity.
14
THE COURT: Right. And so again, though, I keep
15
ongoing back to the very first sentence on page 7, doesn't
16
that cure it?
17
THE COURT: I mean otherwise I guess I can say if
18
you answered questions numbers, 3, 7 or 11 yes then answer
19
question number 13 if you have answered question numbers 3,
20
7 or 11 no, do not answer any other remaining questions? I
21
guess that is another way I could clear it up.
22
MR. MALDONADO: The alternative is if the jury comes
23
back and they answer yes on the qualified immunity and then
24
they award nominal damages the Court would entertain briefing
25
from the parties.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
5
1
2
THE COURT: Yes, I can clean it up as a matter of

law.
MR. MALDONADO: That's right.
THE COURT: But I guess I am still stuck, with
haven't I cured it by the first line?
MR. RALLS: Well, by the first line on page 7?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. RALLS: I mean that is 3, 7 or 11, so.
THE COURT: And they will only answer 3, 7 or 11 yes
10
if they have answered no to qualified immunity on 2, 6, and
11
10.
12
MR. RALLS: True.
13
THE COURT: Do you see what I am doing?
14
MR. MALDONADO: I know, Your Honor, but the
15
instruction is that they must award if they find a violation.
16
And so they answer yes to the violation and they answered yes
17
to the qualified immunity.
18
THE COURT: Oh, no. Now I see where you are headed.
19
Mr. Maldonado, even if there was a violation, but he had
20
qualified immunity, you don't get nominal damages, do you.
21
MR. MALDONADO: That's right, Your Honor, you don't.
22
THE COURT: Okay. Then we are saying the same
23
thing. (Maldonado) and my only concern is that I don't know
24
whether the jury will get it from this, but, you know, it is
25
not -- I mean, it is only for the purpose of clarifying it for

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
6
the jury.
THE COURT: Okay. I think I have not it right. It
is a dance they have to go through, but I think I have worded
it all correctly and if for some reason there is an error, we
will deal with the error if it arises if it does.
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Anything
else by way of objections to the jury instructions or verdict
form.
10
11
MR. RALLS: No Your Honor but I would request the
12
plaintiff be required to open fully as to liability and
13
damages.
14
THE COURT: Yes. He will be required to open fully.
15
Mr. Maldonado, I am giving you guys 30 minutes each, do you
16
want to reserve some time for rebuttal.
17
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor, seven minutes.
18
THE COURT: 7? So 23 and 7. Okay. And I will give
19
you both a final two minutes warning. Anything else we need
20
to take up before the jury comes in?
21
22
MR. MALDONADO: Just to confirm, Your Honor, they

will have the verdict form?
23
THE COURT: Yes, they will have both the jury
24
instructions and the verdict form. Anything else? Are they
25
all here yet?

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
7
1
2
COURTROOM SECURITY OFFICER: One was missing. Let

me find out.
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, do we move the.
THE COURT: Cow can twist it and --
COURTROOM SECURITY OFFICER: They are filling out
6
7
their men use they are all here.

THE COURT: Why don't we take a quick break, the
wiring is very delicate why don't Karl to get you and slightly
angle it toward the jury. And I will come out when the jury
10
is ready.
11
(Brief recess.)
12
THE COURT: Please be seated. Good morning, ladies
13
and gentlemen.
14
15
THE COURT: You should have in front of you two
16
documents, one called jury instructions and one called the
17
verdict form. Do you not? January isn't Jan is not feeling
18
well, she has a cold, she completely slipped. Call Jan.
19
20
21
THE COURT: Well most of the time it runs like a

well oiled machine. Jan thank you.
THE COURT: You should now have two documents, one
22
called jury instructions and one called verdict form. I
23
provide you a written copy because it is my duty now to read
24
this charge to you. And so rather than read to you 14 pages I
25
find it much more easy on the juries if they can read along
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
8
rather than just me reading this to you.
MEMBERS OF THE JURY:
Now that you have heard all of the evidence, it is
my duty and responsibility to instruct you on the law you are
to apply in this case. The law contained in these
instructions is the only law you may follow. It is your duty
to follow what I instruct you the law is, regardless of any
opinion that you might have as to what the law ought to be.
If I have given you the impression during the trial
10
that I favor either party, you must disregard that impression.
11
If I have given you the impression during the trial that I
12
have an opinion about the facts of this case, you must
13
disregard that impression. You are the sole judges of the
14
facts of this case. Other than my instructions to you on the
15
law, you should disregard anything I may have said or done
16
during the trial in arriving at your verdict.Page 1.
17
You should consider all of the instructions about
18
the law as a whole and regard each instruction in light of the
19
others, without isolating a particular statement or paragraph.
20
The testimony of the witnesses and other exhibits
21
introduced by the parties constitute the evidence. The
22
statements of counsel are not evidence; they are only
23
arguments. It is important for you to distinguish between the
24
arguments of counsel and the evidence on which those arguments
25
rest. What the lawyers say or do is not evidence. You may,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
9
however, consider their arguments in light of the evidence
that has been admitted and determine whether the evidence
admitted in this trial supports the arguments. You must
determine the facts from all the testimony that you have heard
and the other evidence submitted. You are the judges of the
facts, but in finding those facts, you must apply the law as I
instruct you.Page 2.
You are required by law to decide the case in a
fair, impartial, and unbiased manner, based entirely on the
10
law and on the evidence presented to you in the courtroom.
11
You may not be influenced by passion, prejudice, or sympathy
12
you might have for the plaintiff or the defendant in arriving
13
at your verdict.
14
Plaintiff Richard Rynearson has the burden of
15
proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. To
16
establish by a preponderance of the evidence means to prove
17
something is more likely so than not so. If you find that
18
Plaintiff Rynearson has failed to prove any element of his
19
claim by a preponderance of the evidence, then he may not
20
recover on that claim.Page 2.
21
The fact that a person brought a lawsuit and is in
22
court seeking damages creates no inference that the person is
23
entitled to a judgment. Anyone may make a claim and file a
24
lawsuit. The act of making a claim in a lawsuit, by itself,
25
does not in any way tend to establish that claim and is not
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
10
evidence.Page 3.
The evidence you are to consider consists of the
testimony of the witnesses, the documents and other exhibits
admitted into evidence, and any fair inferences and reasonable
conclusions you can draw from the facts and circumstances that
have been proven.
Generally speaking, there are two types of evidence.
One is direct evidence, such as testimony of an eyewitness.
The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence.
10
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that proves a fact from
11
which you can logically conclude another fact exists. As a
12
general rule, the law makes no distinction between direct and
13
circumstantial evidence, but simply requires that you find the
14
facts from a preponderance of all the evidence, both direct
15
and circumstantial.
16
Page 3.
17
You alone are to determine the questions of
18
credibility or truthfulness of the witnesses. In weighing the
19
testimony of the witnesses, you may consider the witness's
20
manner and demeanor on the witness stand, any feelings or
21
interest in the case, or any prejudice or bias about the case,
22
that he or she may have, and the consistency or inconsistency
23
of his or her testimony considered in the light of the
24
circumstances. Has the witness been contradicted by other
25
credible evidence? Has he or she made statements at other

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
11
times and places contrary to those made here on the witness
stand? You must give the testimony of each witness the
credibility that you think it deserves.
Page 4.
5
6
Even though a witness may be a party to the action
and therefore interested in its outcome, the testimony may be
accepted if it is not contradicted by direct evidence or by
any inference that may be drawn from the evidence, if you
10
11
believe the testimony.

You are not to decide this case by counting the
12
number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides.
13
Witness testimony is weighed; witnesses are not counted. The
14
test is not the relative number of witnesses, but the relative
15
convincing force of the evidence. The testimony of a single
16
will will
17
18
witness is sufficient to prove any fact, even if a

greater will
19
number of witnesses testified to the contrary, if
20
after considering all of the other evidence, you believe that
21
witness.page 4.
22
You are required to evaluate the testimony of a
23
law-enforcement officer as you would the testimony of any
24
other witness. No special weight may be given to his or her
25
testimony because he or she is a law enforcement

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
12
officer.Page 5.
In determining the weight to give to the testimony
of a witness, consider whether there was evidence that at some
other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say
or do something, that was different from the testimony given
at the trial.
7
8
A simple mistake by a witness does not

necessarily mean that the witness did not tell the truth as he
or she remembers it. People may forget some things or
10
remember other things inaccurately. If a witness made a
11
misstatement, consider whether that misstatement was an
12
intentional falsehood or simply an innocent mistake. The
13
significance of that may depend on whether it has to do with
14
an important fact or with only an unimportant detail.Page 5.
15
At times during trial, I sustained objections to
16
questions asked without permitting the witness to answer. You
17
may not draw any inferences from an unanswered question.
18
Such items as I excluded from your consideration were excluded
19
because they were not legally admissible as evidence. You
20
must decide this case solely upon the admissible evidence
21
before you.Page 5.
22
First, Plaintiff Rynearson claims that Defendant
23
Richter violated his constitutional right to be free from
24
unreasonable arrest or seizure. To recover damages for these
25
alleged constitutional violations, Plaintiff Rynearson must

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
13
1
2
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

1. Defendant Richter committed an act that violated
the constitutional rights Plaintiff Rynearson claims were
violated, and
5
6
2. Defendant Richter's acts were the cause of

Plaintiff Rynearson's damages.
Plaintiff Rynearson claims that the way Defendant
Richter stopped and arrested him on September 7, 2009,
violated his constitutional rights. To establish these
10
claims, Plaintiff Rynearson must show that the stop and arrest
11
were unreasonable.
12
In the case of a traffic stop, a police officer must
13
have reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion exists when
14
the traffic stop was justified at its inception and the
15
seizure was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
16
that justified the stop in the first place. Additionally,
17
reasonable suspicion exists when the police officer can point
18
to specific and articulable facts that, when taken together
19
with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant
20
the seizure. You should look at the totality of the
21
circumstances to see whether Defendant Richter has a
22
"particularized and objective basis" for suspecting Plaintiff
23
Rynearson of legal wrongdoing. To help you make this
24
determination, I will instruct you on the elements of the
25
crime for which Plaintiff Rynearson was stopped.
page 7.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
14
Defendant Richter argues that Plaintiff Rynearson
was stopped for violating Texas Transportation Code
545.104(a), which provides: "an operator shall use the signal
authorized by [Texas law] to indicate an intention to turn,
change lanes, or start from a parked position."
If you find that Plaintiff Rynearson has proved by
a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Richter lacked
reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop on September 7,
2009, then Defendant Richter violated Plaintiff Rynearson's
10
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable "seizure"
11
and you must then consider whether Defendant Richter is
12
entitled to qualified immunity, which is a bar to liability
13
that I will explain later. If Plaintiff Rynearson failed to
14
make this showing, then the traffic stop was constitutional,
15
and your verdict will be for Defendant Richter on the
16
unreasonable stop claim.(Page 7)) page 7)
17
Additionally, a warrantless arrest such as the one
18
involved in this case is considered unreasonable under the
19
Fourth Amendment when, at the moment of the arrest, there is
20
no probable cause for the defendant to reasonably believe that
21
a crime has been or is being committed. Probable cause does
22
not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but only a
23
showing of a fair probability of criminal activity. It must
24
be more than bare suspicion, but need not reach the 50%
25
mark.(page 8)
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
15
The reasonableness of an arrest must be judged based
on what a reasonable officer would do under the circumstances,
and does not consider Defendant Richter's state of mind. The
question is whether a reasonable officer would believe that a
crime was, or was being, committed based on the facts
available to that officer at the time of the arrest.
To help you determine whether Defendant Richter had
probable cause to arrest Plaintiff Rynearson, I will now
instruct you on the elements of the crime for which he was
10
arrested.)page 8)
11
Defendant Richter argues that Plaintiff Rynearson
12
was arrested for failing to signal a lane change in violation
13
of Texas Transportation Code 545.104(a). Under
14
545.104(a), "an operator shall use the signal authorized by
15
[Texas law] to indicate an intention to turn, change lanes, or
16
start from a parked position." Texas law provides that a
17
police officer may arrest someone for violating 545.104(a).
18
If you find that Plaintiff Rynearson has proved by a
19
preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Richter lacked
20
probable cause to make the arrest on September 7, 2009, then
21
Defendant Richter violated Plaintiff Rynearson's
22
constitutional right to be free from unreasonable arrest and
23
you must then consider whether Defendant Richter is entitled
24
to qualified immunity, which again is a bar to liability that
25
I will explain later. If Plaintiff Rynearson failed to make

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
16
this showing, then the arrest was constitutional, and your
verdict will be for Defendant Richter on the
unreasonable-arrest claim.
(page 9)
Next, Plaintiff Rynearson claims
Defendant Richter violated Plaintiff Rynearson's First
Amendment right to be free from a retaliatory arrest. To
support his claim for retaliatory arrest, Plaintiff Rynearson
must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
10
11
1. He was engaged in constitutionally protected

activity;
12
2. The actions of Defendant Richter caused Plaintiff
13
Rynearson to suffer an injury that would chill a person of
14
ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity;
15
and
16
3. Defendant Richter's adverse actions were
17
substantially motivated against Plaintiff Rynearson's exercise
18
of constitutionally protected conduct.
19
If you find that Defendant Richter had probable
20
cause to arrest Plaintiff Rynearson, then you may not find for
21
Plaintiff Rynearson on this claim. If a person's conduct gives
22
a police officer probable cause to believe he or she is guilty
23
of a crime, that individual cannot make a claim for
24
retaliatory arrest. Probable cause exists when the totality
25
of the facts and circumstances within a police officer's

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
17
knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a
reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed
or was committing an offense. Probable cause does not require
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but only a showing of a fair
probability of criminal activity. It must be more than bare
suspicion, but need not reach the 50% mark.
(page 10)
If you find that Plaintiff Rynearson has proved the
second two elements by a preponderance of the evidence, then
10
Defendant Richter violated Plaintiff Rynearson's
11
constitutional right to be free from retaliatory arrest and
12
you must then consider whether Defendant Richter is entitled
13
to qualified immunity, which again is a bar to liability that
14
I will explain in a moment. If Plaintiff Rynearson failed to
15
make this showing, then the arrest was constitutional, and
16
your verdict will be for Defendant Richter on the First
17
Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim. Additionally, if you find
18
probable cause existed for Defendant Richter to arrest
19
Plaintiff Rynearson, any argument that Plaintiff Rynearson's
20
speech as opposed to his criminal conduct was the motivation
21
for his arrest must fail, and so your verdict must be for
22
Defendant Richter on this claim.
23
As to each claim for which Plaintiff
24
Rynearson has proved each essential element, you must consider
25
whether Defendant Richter is entitled to what the law calls

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
18
"qualified immunity." Qualified immunity bars a defendant's
liability even if he violated a plaintiff's constitutional
rights. Qualified immunity exists to give government
officials breathing room to make reasonable but mistaken
judgments about open legal questions. Qualified immunity
provides protection from liability for all but the plainly
incompetent government officials who knowingly violate the
law. It is Plaintiff Rynearson's burden to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that qualified immunity does not
10
apply in this case.
11
Qualified immunity applies if a reasonable officer
12
could have believed that the stop and arrest were lawful in
13
light of clearly established law and the information Defendant
14
Richter possessed. But Defendant Richter is not entitled to
15
qualified immunity if, at the time of the stop and arrest, a
16
reasonable officer with the same information could not have
17
believed that his actions were lawful. Law enforcement
18
officers are presumed to know the clearly established
19
constitutional rights of individuals they encounter.)page 11)
20
In this case, the clearly established law at the
21
time was that individuals have a right to be free from arrests
22
not supported by probable cause, and that it is a violation of
23
the Texas Transportation Code to fail to signal a lane change
24
or to fail to display your driver's license upon demand of a
25
police officer.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
19
If, after considering the scope of discretion
and responsibility generally given to police officers in
performing their duties and after considering all of the
circumstances of this case as they would have reasonably
appeared to Defendant Richter at the time of the stop and
arrest, you find that Plaintiff Rynearson failed to prove that
no reasonable officer could have believed that the stop and
arrest was lawful, then Defendant Richter is entitled to
qualified immunity, and your verdict must be for Defendant
10
Richter on those claims. But if you find that Defendant
11
Richter violated Plaintiff Rynearson's constitutional rights
12
and that Defendant Richter is not entitled to qualified
13
immunity as to that claim, then your verdict must be for
14
Plaintiff Rynearson on that claim.
15
If Plaintiff Rynearson has proved a claim against
16
Defendant Richter by a preponderance of the evidence, you must
17
determine the damages to which Plaintiff Rynearson is
18
entitled. You should not interpret the fact that I am giving
19
instructions about Plaintiff Rynearson's damages as an
20
indication in any way that I believe that Plaintiff Rynearson
21
should, or should not, win this case. It is your task first
22
to decide whether Defendant Richter is liable. I am
23
instructing you on damages only so that you will have guidance
24
in the event you decide that Defendant Richter is liable and
25
that Plaintiff Rynearson is entitled to recover money from

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
20
1
2
Defendant Richter.
If you find that Defendant Richter is liable to
Plaintiff Rynearson, then you must determine an amount that is
fair compensation for all of Plaintiff Rynearson's damages.
These damages are called compensatory damages. The purpose of
compensatory damages is to make Plaintiff Rynearson whole-that
is, to compensate Plaintiff Rynearson for the damage that he
has suffered. Compensatory damages are not limited to
expenses that Plaintiff Rynearson may have incurred because of
10
his injury. If Plaintiff Rynearson wins, he is entitled to
11
compensatory damages for any physical injury, pain and
12
suffering, and mental anguish that he has suffered because of
13
Defendant Richter's wrongful conduct. No compensatory damages
14
should be awarded for any adverse personnel action that may
15
have been suffered by Plaintiff Rynearson.
16
(page 13)
17
You may award compensatory damages only for injuries
18
that Plaintiff Rynearson proves were proximately caused by
19
Defendant Richter's allegedly wrongful conduct. The damages
20
that you award must be fair compensation for all of Plaintiff
21
Rynearson's damages, no more and no less. You should not award
22
compensatory damages for speculative injuries, but only for
23
those injuries that Plaintiff Rynearson has actually suffered
24
or that Plaintiff Rynearson is reasonably likely to suffer in
25
the future.
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
21
If you decide to award compensatory damages, you
should be guided by dispassionate common sense. Computing
damages may be difficult, but you must not let that difficulty
lead you to engage in arbitrary guesswork. On the other hand,
the law does not require that Plaintiff Rynearson prove the
amount of his losses with mathematical precision, but only
with as much definitiveness and accuracy as the circumstances
permit.
You must use sound discretion in fixing an award of
10
damages, drawing reasonable inferences where you find them
11
appropriate from the facts and circumstances in evidence.
12
You should consider the following elements of
13
damage, to the extent you find them proved by a preponderance
14
of the evidence:
15
1. Physical pain and mental anguish in the past.
16
2. Costs associated with posting bail and retrieving
17
his vehicle from the car impound lot.
18
To recover compensatory damages for mental and
19
emotional distress, Plaintiff Rynearson must prove that he has
20
suffered a specific discernable injury with credible evidence.
21
Hurt feelings, anger and frustration are part of life and are
22
not the types of harm that could support a mental-anguish
23
award. Evidence of mental anguish need not be corroborated by
24
doctors, psychologists, or other witnesses, but Plaintiff
25
Rynearson must support his claims with competent evidence of

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
22
the nature, extent, and duration of the harm. Damages for
mental or emotional distress must be based on the evidence at
trial. They may not be based on speculation or sympathy.
If you find that Defendant Richter is liable for
Plaintiff Rynearson's injuries, you must award Plaintiff
Rynearson the compensatory damages that he has proved. You
may, in addition, award punitive damages if you find that
Defendant Richter acted maliciously or with reckless
indifference to the rights of others.
10
11
An act is done maliciously if done or prompted or
12
accompanied by ill will, or spite, or grudge toward the
13
injured person individually, or toward some class or group of
14
which she is a member. One acts with reckless indifference to
15
the rights of others when one's conduct, under the
16
circumstances, manifests a complete lack of concern for the
17
rights or safety of another. Plaintiff Rynearson has the
18
burden of proving that punitive damages should be awarded by a
19
preponderance of the evidence.
20
The purpose of punitive damages is to punish and
21
deter, not to compensate. Punitive damages serve to punish a
22
defendant for malicious or reckless conduct and, by doing so,
23
to deter others from engaging in similar conduct in the
24
future. You are not required to award punitive damages. If
25
you do decide to award punitive damages, you must use sound

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
23
reason in setting the amount. Your award of punitive damages
must not reflect bias, prejudice, or sympathy toward any
party. It should be presumed that Plaintiff Rynearson has
been made whole by compensatory damages, so punitive damages
should be awarded only if Defendant Richter's misconduct is so
reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further
sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence.
If you decide to award punitive damages, the
following factors should guide you in fixing the proper
10
amount:
11
The ratio between the punitive damages you are
12
considering awarding and the amount of harm that was suffered
13
by Plaintiff Rynearson.
14
Nominal damages are an inconsequential or trifling
15
sum awarded to a plaintiff when a technical violation of his
16
rights has occurred but the plaintiff has suffered no actual
17
loss or injury. If you find from a preponderance of the
18
evidence that Plaintiff Rynearson sustained a technical
19
violation of his Fourth or First Amendment rights but that
20
Plaintiff Rynearson suffered no actual loss as a result of
21
this violation, then you must award Plaintiff Rynearson
22
nominal damages.
23
It is now your duty to deliberate and to consult
24
with one another in an effort to reach a verdict. Each of you
25
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
24
It is now your duty to deliberate and to consult
with one another in an effort to reach a verdict. Each of you
must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial
consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. During
your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own
opinions and change your mind if you are convinced that you
were wrong. But do not give up on your honest beliefs because
the other jurors think differently, or just to finish the
case.
10
Remember at all times, you are the judges of the
11
facts. You have been allowed to take notes during this trial.
12
Any notes that you took during this trial are only aids to
13
memory. If your memory differs from your notes, you should
14
rely on your memory and not on the notes. The notes are not
15
evidence. If you did not take notes, rely on your independent
16
recollection of the evidence and do not be unduly influenced
17
by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to
18
greater weight than the recollection or impression of each
19
juror about the testimony.
20
When you go into the jury room to deliberate, you
21
may take with you a copy of this charge, the exhibits that I
22
have admitted into evidence, and your notes. You must select
23
a jury foreperson to guide you in your deliberations and to
24
speak for you here in the courtroom. Your verdict must be
25
unanimous. A verdict form has been prepared for your

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
25
convenience. After you have reached a unanimous verdict, your
jury foreperson must fill out the answers to the written
questions on the verdict form and sign and date it. After you
have concluded your service and I have discharged the jury,
you are not required to talk with anyone about the case.
If you need to communicate with me during your
deliberations, the jury foreperson should write the inquiry
and give it to the court security officer. After consulting
with the attorneys, I will respond either in writing or by
10
meeting with you in the courtroom. Keep in mind, however,
11
that you must never disclose to anyone, not even to me, your
12
numerical division on any question.
13
You may now proceed to the jury room to begin your
14
deliberations.(now, at this time, ladies and gentlemen, I am
15
going to recognize the attorneys for their closing statements)
16
delete last paragraph) again what the lawyers say is not
17
evidence but you should nevertheless pay close attention to it
18
because it is their job to point out what they believe
19
deserves emphasis during your deliberations in the jury
20
deliberation room. And with that, Mr. Maldonado.
21
22
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you. Your Honor. Good

morning, ladies and gentlemen. Of the jury.
23
24
MR. MALDONADO: Richard Rynearson and I want to
25
thank you again for your service and your willingness to serve
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
26
on this jury, your patience and your willingness to serve on
this jury. Your service is invaluable, and a necessary
element to our democracy. I don't mean to sound too stuffy or
formal about this. But you sit here as the zero conscience of
the community. We are asking you to apply your enlightened
conscience to protect and defend the Constitution for
Mr. Rynearson, who has put himself on the line. This case is
more than simply about a traffic stop. It is about your right
to question those who have been given great power. With great
10
power comes great responsibility. Not all public servants are
11
prudent in their exercise of the power. And therefore when a
12
member of our community brings forward to you a complaint of
13
abuse or misuse of power, it is incumbent that a
14
representative group of the community like yourself apply
15
their collective wisdom to correct that abuse. That is your
16
role today. For you to decide whether Richard Rynearson or
17
officer Edwin Richter is telling the truth, you must apply
18
your common sense. You heard from Mr. Rynearson about his
19
driving on September 7, 2009. And he explained to you why it
20
would have been unlikely for him, an Air Force pilot, not to
21
signal for a lane change. He was not speeding. He was not
22
weaving in and out of the lanes. His driving was in
23
compliance with traffic laws. Does it seem unusual to you for
24
someone who does not believe to have done any wrongdoing to
25
ask the officer, "officer can you tell me why you stopped me?"
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
27
officer Richter would have you believe that is bizarre.
Frankly, the bizarre aspect about this case is that 15 or 20
seconds after that question was posed Mr. Rynearson was forced
out of his vehicle, handcuffed, walked to the police car,
driven to a police station and sat there for six hours. That
is the bizarre aspect of this. Let me emphasize something
about this case again. When you go back to the jury room and
deliberate, think about what 15, 20, 30 seconds means.
Remember there is no dispute that this happened very quickly.
10
That is what Mr. Rynearson said. Fifteen seconds at most.
11
That is what officer Richter said to you too. It happened
12
very quickly. Then consider which version of the facts is
13
true in light of that agreed fact. It happened very quickly.
14
Is it one where Mr. Rynearson poses two questions to officer
15
Richter who confirms and then orders him out (to) or do you
16
believe in those 15 seconds officer Richter repeated several
17
times, give me your driver's license and proof of insurance.
18
It wasn't just once or twice or even three times. Officer
19
Richter testified to you, several times. Think about it.
20
What is more likely to happen? These are the facts we
21
presented to you. Officer Richter approaches the vehicle and
22
the window where Mr. Rynearson is sitting in his car. Officer
23
Richter, can you provide your driver's license and proof of
24
insurance? Mr. Rhine, can you tell me why you pulled me over?
25
A. Offer Richter, I saw that you had Florida license mates

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
28
and wanted to check and see if you had a driver's license.
Mr. Rynearson. Confirm that you are -- that you stopped me
without cause. Officer Richter. Get out of the vehicle.
Mr. Rynearson. Confirm that you are ordering me out of the
vehicle without cause. Officer Richter. I am confirming
that. Get out of the vehicle. Fifteen seconds. That is it.
That's what it took. That is what happened here. That is how
Mr. Rynearson ended up handcuffed in the back of a police car,
driven to the magistrate office to sit in a holding cell for
10
six hours. Don't get distracted by the issue of whether
11
Mr. Rynearson refused to tender his driver's license and proof
12
of insurance. Remember, this happened very quickly. Officer.
13
Can you confirm, can you tell me why you stopped me, Officer,
14
can you confirm for me that you stopped me without cause?
15
Mr. Richter, officer Richter didn't stand -- didn't sit --
16
didn't go to the witness stand and said say to you,
17
Mr. Rynearson pulled the documents away from me. He held them
18
away from me. He never showed them to me. Do you think it is
19
consistent for a person to withhold documents or not give them
20
to him if he has them prepared when the officer approaches the
21
car? In fact, the issue of the driver's license and proof of
22
insurance is so inconsequential and really not believable that
23
officer Richter didn't even give it as an arrest as the reason
24
to arrest Mr. Rynearson. You heard it from him. That's not
25
why I arrested him. You will go back and you will read his
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
29
officer's report. That's not the reason why he arrested him.
It really is not an issue here. Officer Richter admitted that
Mr. Rynearson never said I am not giving you the documents.
And he admitted that Mr. Rynearson was holding the documents.
What was said, how far apart the documents were held, there is
a different story on that. But it doesn't matter. Fifteen
seconds. It took 15 seconds for me to hold these documents
and then end up handcuffed. Fifteen seconds. Go back to the
jury room and time it. And then the most bizarre thing of all
10
happened. Officer Richter exercised the awesome power that we
11
as citizens have given him. He exercised his powers as police
12
officers and ordered Mr. Rynearson to exit the car and
13
handcuffed him. You and I don't have that power. Only peace
14
officers, only law enforcement officers. That's why this is
15
so bizarre. Where do we go from officer, tell me why I was
16
stopped to being handcuffed? One additional fact undermine,
17
undermines officer Richter's story. Is it consistent with
18
someone who is uncooperative or difficult not to have cursed
19
at the officer, not to have been disrespectful? You heard it
20
from officer Richter. Mr. Rynearson never, was never
21
disrespectful, never cursed at him. I asked him, when you
22
were walking him to the police car, handcuffed, did he resist?
23
Did he say anything to you? Did he make a motion that would
24
have threatened you? Is that consistent with someone who is
25
uncooperative or difficult? Questioning an officer is not and

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
30
can never be a bizarre thing, particularly when it concerns
the work of public servants. Every one of us has the right
and obligation to make inquiries to a public servant whether
the, whether the public's business is done in compliance with
the law. It is our right and our obligation. Don't be
distracted about the weapon. A lot of testimony about an
armed -- the fact that Mr. Rynearson was armed and he was
carrying a nine-millimeter Glock. Don't be distracted about
it. That is not why he was arrested. You heard it from
10
officer Richter. Don't be distracted by the weapon. He
11
wasn't breaking the law for carrying the weapon. He wasn't
12
cited for it. There is nothing unusual about him carrying a
13
weapon. It is the law. It is legal here in Texas. He is
14
military, for God's sakes, we expect him to have weapons. And
15
what about the fact that Mr. Rynearson never told officer
16
Richter about the weapon? Fifteen, 20 seconds. How much time
17
do you have to say that? Fifteen, 20 seconds. Officer, why
18
did you stop me?" And from there, he ended up handcuffed.
19
the sake is -- the same is true for alleged threat by
20
Mr. Rynearson on the way to the magistrate office. Remember
21
what Mr. Rynearson testified that he said to officer Richter.
22
I am in the military. I have been shot at and killed people.
23
I have seen far better men die to protect the constitution
24
that you just violated. Yes, that is what Mr. Rynearson said.
25
You heard from him. Did he say it to threaten him? He says

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
31
he didn't. I asked officer Richter, were you threatened? He
wasn't threatened. He didn't take it as a threat. Look at
the police report. There is no such threat for that. The
statement simply reflected Mr. Rynearson's disbelief,
disillusionment, disappointment with officer Richter's
conduct. That is that officer Richter so casually, so
recklessly violated Mr. Rynearson's rights for simply saying
why did you stop me? The judge has instructed you on the law.
You will be asked to decide whether Mr. Rynearson's civil
10
rights were violated, in flee different ways. Was the stop
11
illegal? Was he arrested with no probable cause? Was he
12
arrested because he asserted his first amendment right of
13
questioning a public servant? If I can direct your attention
14
to the verdict form that you were provided. The first set of
15
questions are about the traffic stop, and it asks you whether
16
you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the stop was
17
lawful. If you believe Mr. Rynearson, that the reason for
18
stop was because he had license -- his license plates were
19
from out of state, if you believe Mr. Rynearson that that is
20
what officer Richter said to him at the window, then you must
21
answer yes. It is against the law to stop a car simply
22
because it has out-of-state license plates.
23
24
25
MR. RALLS: I am going to object to that, Your

Honor, it is not in the charge, as the legal conclusion.
THE COURT: That is sustained. Rephrase your
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
32
1
2
argument.
MR. MALDONADO: If you find that he didn't have
reasonable suspicion to stop the car, you must answer yes.
The second question, page number 2, asks you whether officer
Richter is entitled to qualified immunity. I won't go over
the instructions that the Court has given you. Let me just
say, that no reasonable officer in this case knowing that he
cannot stop a car simply because it has out-of-state license
plates could have believed that such action was lawful. You
10
must answer no to this question, question number 3 asks you
11
whether officer Richter's conduct caused harm to
12
Mr. Rynearson. We submit to you that you have to answer yes
13
to this question, the stopping of the car, the deprivation of
14
that liberty in and of itself is the violation, however small.
15
You don't have, officer Richter doesn't have the right to stop
16
someone without legal justification. Moving on to question
17
number 4. If you find that officer Richter acted maliciously
18
or with reckless disregard to Mr. Rynearson's rights then you
19
must answer yes. And I submit to you that your answer on this
20
question is yes. As a police officer, officer Richter is
21
presumed to know the law. As it concerns the law with traffic
22
stops. He stated on the stand that he cannot legally stop a
23
car simply because it has out of state tags. And knowing
24
that, he stopped Mr. Rynearson on September 7, 2009. He
25
recklessly disregarded Mr. Rynearson's rights. Moving on to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
33
page 3, you will be asked about the claim for a wrongful
arrest. An arrest without probable cause. Question 5 asks
you to consider whether officer Richter violated
Mr. Rynearson's constitutional right to be free from arrest
without probable cause. We ask that you answer this question
yes. If you find that officer Richter wrongfully arrested
Mr. Rynearson because of the out of state license plates and
not because of the license to signal then you have to answer
yes. This is because officer Richter has no legal cause, no
10
probable cause to rales Mr. Rynearson. You must also answer
11
no to question number six. This concerns qualified immunity
12
on the question of arrest. No reasonable officer knowing that
13
the stop was made because of the Florida license plates could
14
conclude that officer original's Richter's actions were lawful
15
in arresting Mr. Rynearson. You must also answer yes to the
16
question number 7. This question asks you whether defendant
17
Richter's act caused harm to Mr. Rynearson. Let's think about
18
that arrest. The handcuffing, the riding in the back of a
19
car, limited mobility, the loss of your -- loss of liberty.
20
Six hours in a holding cell. The indignity and the stigma of
21
having been arrested in public. Having to report the arrest
22
to your superiors in the Air Force. These were caused by the
23
false arrest committed by officer Richter. Question number
24
8 asks you to consider punitive damages and award -- and we
25
submit that you should answer yes and a ward them to

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
34
Mr. Rynearson. The judge has instructed you on the
circumstances and conditions under which you must award
punitive damages. Remember, go back to the instruction. They
serve to punish the defendant for malicious or reckless
conduct and to dether the others from engaging in similar
conduct in the future. Remember that we as citizens have
entrusted police officers with the awesome power to enforce
laws and to do it through coercive means if necessary. We
trust that such powers will be used wisely and prudently.
10
Officer Richter did not act wisely or prudently here. He knew
11
that he did not have probable cause to arrest Mr. Rynearson,
12
and notwithstanding knowing that, officer Richter handcuffed
13
Mr. Rynearson, put him in the back of a police car, denied him
14
his liberty and sent him to jail for six hours. That is not a
15
prudent or wise exercise of the power officer Richter has been
16
instructed. It is a reckless disregard of Mr. Rynearson's
17
federal civil rights. You must also answer yes to question
18
number 9. (Entrusted) that is moving on to the of retaliatory
19
arrest, the First Amendment, page 5. If you believe that
20
there was no legal cause for the stop and arrest, and that the
21
arrest was motivated because Mr. Rynearson asked, "Officer,
22
why did you stop me, that he had the audacity to ask that
23
question that Mr. Rynearson's First Amendment rights were
24
violated. You must answer yes to that question. You must
25
answer no to question number ten. No reasonable officer could

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
35
believe that it was lawful to arrest a person simply for
asking a question. And when there is no probable cause to
arrest them. You must answer yes to question number 11, the
arrest, the jail, the handcuffing, the indignity, the
humiliation, those were caused by officer Richter. He was the
legal cause of those wrongs. We ask that you also answer yes
to question number 12. Remember that punitive damages are
meant to punish and deter. Go back to the instruction when
you are in the -- when you are deliberating in the jury room.
10
We submit to you that officer Richter's retaliatory arrest
11
shows a reckless disregard for Mr. Rynearson's free speech
12
rights. You will then be asked to award damages to
13
Mr. Rynearson. We are on page 7. You are asking need
14
questions there. Question number 13 asks you, what amount of
15
money, if any, reasonably compensates Mr. Rynearson for his
16
mental anguish and compensatory damages? The damages we seek
17
here are not easily provable. That doesn't mean they don't
18
exist. You heard from Mr. Rynearson what it meant for him to
19
have his rights violated. You heard from him what it means
20
for him to own these rights, having served in Afghanistan and
21
Iraq. You heard from him how this shattered his view of the
22
Constitution and what it means to put your life to protect it
23
and then to come back home and have someone so casually and
24
recklessly violate it. You heard Mr. Rynearson testify to the
25
indignities and stigma of having to be arrested and report

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
36
such arrest to the Air Force. A major. And we also have the
issue that Mr. Rynearson spent six hours in jail on a Sunday
evening. Only you in your collective wisdom can decide what
is a fair and just amount. There is no dispute that at a
minimum what you have here is six hours in jail as injury.
Putting aside the indignity, the humiliation, the
embarrassment, the trauma, putting aside that, six hours in
jail.
9
10
11
THE COURT: You have exhausted 23 minutes and you

still need to fully open on the remaining questions.
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. Most folks are at
12
home having dinner with the family on a Sunday evening.
13
Nowadays a that is about the only time parents have to spend
14
with their kids. This happened on a Sunday in September, for
15
some, September Sundays means enjoying a beer and watching
16
supervised night football. For others, it is a time to lie
17
down just for a few minutes to nap. For most of us, it is a
18
time to decompress, prepare for week, go to bed early for the
19
start of the week. Only you in your enlightened conscience
20
can put a value to this injury. We submit to you that a fair
21
-- that fair compensation for these injuries are between 1,000
22
and $3,000. You have the right to give more or less. For
23
Mr. Rynearson, this is not about the money. It is about the
24
wrongs that officer Richter caused him, his loss of liberty.
25
Because Mr. Rynearson suffered an injury that is compensable,
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
37
and if you determine to compensate him for that injury, you
don't have to bother with question number 14. If you do
choose to answer question number 14, we leave it to your
collective wisdom to decide what is a fair amount. Question
number 15 asks you to provide an amount for punitive damages.
Remember that punitive damages are meant to punish and deter.
This case might appear small, but other police officers are
watching. The community is watching. They wait to hear from
you whether there are any consequences for illegally stopping
10
a citizen or arresting him without probable cause on a mere
11
traffic violation. As jury members, you sit here representing
12
the community in deciding whether officer Richter violated the
13
Constitution. You express the conscience of the community and
14
what we stand for in your verdict. We submit to you that this
15
is a case where you must send a message to officer Richter and
16
all the other officers who have been entrusted with enforcing
17
the law. We ask that you award a punitive damages in the
18
range of 2000 to 10,000. It is not about the money. It is
19
about the message that you send to those who we have entrusted
20
with the power to arrest us. Ladies and gentlemen of the
21
jury, I thank you for your service and request that you return
22
a verdict in favor of Mr. Rynearson.
23
24
THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. You have five

minutes remaining. Mr. Ralls.
25
MR. RALLS: Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
38
ladies and gentlemen. Again, on behalf of my client, Edwin
Richter and myself, I would like to thank you for helping us
with this case and helping us resolve these disputed fact
issues. I want to start by asking you to recall the oath that
you took at the beginning of this case when you were seated as
jurors, and that oath is to follow the law as the judge has
instructed you, what that law is. You may not like as we
discussed in voir dire you may not like the fact that a person
can be arrested for a simple traffic violation, but sure
10
enough that's what the law is, and that is what happened in
11
this case. I also want to point out to you that what the
12
lawyers say, again, is not evidence in this case, so anything
13
Mr. Maldonado has just told you or anything that I am about to
14
tell you is not evidence. We are just trying to tell you what
15
we believe the evidence has shown in this case. And also I
16
want to tell you that the plaintiff has this burden of proof
17
in this case, not only does the inform have the burden of
18
proof on the three claims that the plaintiff has made that is
19
wrongful stop, arrest, or seizure, and retaliatory arrest, but
20
he also has the burden of proof to prove that no reasonable
21
officer could have believed the actions of -- could have
22
believed that he should take the actions that officer Richter
23
took in this case. And I want to point out at the very outset
24
that there is no evidence with regard to what other reasonable
25
officers could or would have done in this case. So let's look

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
39
at the first element of the claim in this case, and that is
the wrongful arrest. Again, you can -- what we say is not
evidence, but you can take your common sense into the jury
room with you, and in determining the credibility of these
witnesses and what I would like to point out to you is that
you can consider that officer Richter's reason for arrest of
Mr. Rynearson was, in fact, the failure to signal a lane
change on Losoya street. Consider the fact that the -- even
though the plaintiff would ask you to believe that the reason
10
that Mr. Rynearson was pulled over was because Mr. Rynearson
11
had out of state license plates and officer Richter wanted to
12
see if he had a driver's license, that simply does not hold
13
water in this case. Officer Richter has been -- has been in
14
the police as a military policeman, as a Leavenworth Kansas
15
policeman, as a San Antonio policeman for a total of 36 years.
16
San Antonio is full of cars, because of the tourism trade, the
17
military presence, the convention trade, full of cars that
18
have out of state license plates. First of all, officers
19
don't want to make tourists mad. Second of all, there is no
20
reason to pull over -- to pick out one car that has out of
21
state license plates just on the off chance that it might not
22
have a driver's license and as officer Richter testified, of
23
all the hundreds of thousands of stops that he has made,
24
virtually all of them have driver's licenses. So why, ask
25
yourselves, why in the world, first of all, would he stop a

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
40
car that -- just because it has out of state license plates
and secondly why in the world would he think that that car,
driver, might not have a driver's license? That just doesn't
make sense. He pulled him over because he failed to signal a
lane change. Another point on that is that, Mr. Rynearson
testified that as soon as he made the right turn on to Losoya
street, he put on his left hand blinker and continued with his
left hand blinker. Officer Richter who was on the downtown
bike patrol for over 15 years and rode those streets all the
10
times, familiar with those streets, testified that he had to
11
-- that Mr. Rynearson had to go through a another intersection
12
before he even got to the intersection of Losoya and commerce.
13
So if he turned on his left hand blinker immediately after he
14
turned on to Losoya street, he would have gone through a
15
second -- he would like you to believe he would have gone
16
through a second intersection all the while with his left-hand
17
blinker on. That just doesn't make sense. And as far as the
18
-- as far as what happened at the car, consider this. This is
19
not Mr. Rynearson's first arrest for an alleged civil rights
20
violation or a first arrest. He was arrested as you recall
21
when he was a lieutenant, he was arrested because he
22
challenged the authority of a police officer that was talking
23
to his friend at a bar. And so he got arrested for that.
24
Consider the fact that when he went up -- when we were talking
25
about the gun, even though the gun is not one of the factors
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
41
in the arrest itself, the gun, what that proves to me, what
that shows is his attitude toward questioning civil rights or
his attitude towards his ability to question others regarding
civil rights, his over board attitude. As soon as I started
asking him about that, he got very upset about how he was
entitled to do that. He -- you know, that was his
constitutional right. That is the same thing I submit to you
that happened when officer Richter got up to his car that day.
For whatever reason, he believed that his constitutional
10
rights have been violated. And officer Richter when he asked
11
him for his license plate -- I mean his license I am sorry and
12
insurance, he responded instead of giving it to him, and he
13
admitted that he did not give it to him after he had
14
responded. After he had requested it. He -- Mr. Rynearson
15
admitted that to you from the jury stand yesterday, that he
16
did not provide it to officer Richter when he requested that.
17
That is perfectly consistent with that kind of attitude that
18
Mr. Rynearson has, that he would say something like you are
19
violating my constitutional rights. That is the -- that is is
20
that is the vernacular he uses. Officer Richter went up to
21
the car and he said you are -- show me your license and your
22
insurance. He said, responded with you are violating my
23
constitutional rights. Officer Richter, license and insurance
24
please, you are violating my constitutional rights. Officer
25
Richter, if you don't show me your license and insurance you

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
42
are going to be arrested. You are violating my constitutional
right it is. And sure enough, after that he still didn't show
it to him except as he was, after he had been told that he was
arrested as he was stepping out of the car. Officer Richter
also had the right regardless of whether Mr. Rynearson showed
him the driver's license and insurance to make an arrest for
the traffic signal violation. The Judge has instructed you as
to what the law in Texas is and that is one of the things that
a police officer can make an arrest for. Officer Richter
10
after having this exchange at the car exercised his discretion
11
to make an arrest as opposed to doing something else which he
12
told you that when he went up to the car in the first place he
13
had the option of simply giving him a verbal warning, which
14
probably would have happened or a ticket, which probably would
15
have happened, but because of the obvious response and the
16
obvious fact that Mr. Rynearson was not going to comply with
17
officer Richter's commands he arrested Mr. Rynearson. Officer
18
Richter's a actions under those circumstances were reasonable.
19
It appeared to him that there was not going to be any
20
cooperation on the part of Mr. Rynearson and is not required,
21
and you haven't heard any evidence that he is required to
22
stand there and argue with Mr. Rynearson for 30 minutes about
23
whether he is going to comply with his orders or not. And
24
Mr. Rynearson, being a major in the United States Air Force,
25
you would think that he would immediately comply with an

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
43
officer's orders, hand him the license and insurance and then
question whether it was a valid stop or not. Again, going
back to the -- going back to the reason for the stop, the
failure to signal the lane change, you can consider officer
Richter's statement with regard to whether Mr. Rynearson
actually signaled the lane change or not, because officer
Richter stated that he wanted to take corrective action with
regard to Mr. Rynearson. He wanted to point out to him,
because that is such a congested intersection that people are
10
there, pedestrians are there all the time, there is a
11
McDonald's right there on the street, people can even -- even
12
Mr. Rynearson admitted people can step out into the street and
13
if you don't signal they could be hit.
14
15
Other traffic could be involved in an accident if

you don't signal. So that's the reason that he pulled him
16
over, was to take corrective action, to point out to him that
17
he had failed to signal his lane change from the right hand
18
lane to the left.
19
I would like to go through the charge with you
20
itself and point out a few things. To you, and that is, and
21
in particular with regard to the starting on page 6, what
22
officer Richter's -- what the standard was for officer Richter
23
to determine whether or not he could make an arrest in this
24
particular instance.
25
And that is whether or not he had probable cause.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
44
And as the point -- as the Court pointed out to you in this
charge, probable cause does not require proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.
It only requires a showing of a fair probability of
criminal activity. It must be more than bare suspicion but it
doesn't even have to reach the 50 percent mark. There is no
question, first of all, that that in this instance, officer
Richter believed that he had probable cause to make an arrest
of Mr. Rynearson for his failing to signal a lane change and
10
secondly for failing to provide his license.
11
And with regard to that, the whole license, whether
12
he provided, arrested him for failing to provide his license,
13
whether he arrested him for a lane change, whether he arrested
14
for terroristic threats for the comments on the way down or
15
for not tendering his concealed handgun license, officer
16
Richter told you the reason he didn't do that, because they
17
don't stack charges.
18
They don't add charges one on the other in San
19
Antonio. That is why all of those do not appear on
20
Plaintiff's Exhibit number 1. He just arrested him for the
21
failure to lane change. And to the next paragraph on page
22
number 6, talks about qualified immunity, actually talks about
23
the reasonableness of the arrest and says the reasonableness
24
of arrest must be judged based on what a reasonable officer
25
would do on the circumstances, and doesn't consider defendant

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
45
Richter's state of mind. The question is whether a reasonable
officer would believe that a crime was or was being committed
(sic) based on the facts available to that officer at the time
of the arrest. There is no question but that the elements for
an arrest were there for officer Richter at that time. I
would like to direct your attention to the verdict form. On
question number 1, asks you do you find from a preponderance
of the evidence of the on September 7, 2009 defendant Richter
violated plaintiff rear gleans.
10
Q. To be free from a seizure, the traffic stop without
11
reasonable suspicion. (Clear up.) Again, again, your answer
12
to that should be no. For the reasons that I have told you.
13
It is a credibility question, but the credibility all stacks
14
up on the side of officer Richter. He didn't -- he wasn't
15
there to make an arrest. He was there to have lunch, but he
16
saw a violation that needed corrective action in a
17
particularly congested intersection and so he took action to
18
do that. He had probable cause to make that arrest. So the
19
answer to question number 1 should be no. If you answer
20
question number 1 no, then you don't need to go to question 2,
21
3 or 4, you just simply go to question 5, and that question
22
asks, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that on
23
September 7 defendant Richter violated plaintiff Rynearson's
24
Fourth Amendment right to be free from arrest without probable
25
cause? Again, the answer is no. If a police officer sees a

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
46
violation take place, like an illegal lane change, he can make
an arrest, and that's what officer Richter did in this
instance. The judge has instructed you that that is what the
law is and that that is what can happen in this instance.
Officer Richter simply exercised his discretion to effect the
arrest. Now, looking at the, again, turning to the qualified
immunity aspect on page 8 and 9, if you look at the first full
paragraph on page 9, the Court says, "In this case the clearly
established law at the time was that individuals have a right
10
to be free from arrest not supported by probable cause and,
11
and that is -- that it is a violation of the Texas
12
transportation code to fail to signal a lane change or to fail
13
to display your driver's license upon demand of an officer.
14
Again, he had probable cause to make the stop for the illegal
15
lane change, again, Mr. Rynearson admitted on the stand the
16
second part of this, that he failed to display his driver's
17
license upon demand of a police officer. He said that he kept
18
it over to his right-hand side and didn't give it to him
19
because he wanted to investigate whether the arrest was legal
20
or not. That is not the law. He can ask him that, and we are
21
not -- we have no objection to that. Everybody has the right
22
to ask a police officer what he has been pulled over for, but
23
if the police officer asks for your insurance and your
24
driver's license, you have got to give it to him and that's
25
what officer -- Mr. Rynearson failed to do in this case, after

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
47
repeated requests. And there is no, again, this -- the burden
is on the plaintiff to prove that no reasonable police officer
would have done what officer Richter did, and there is no
evidence of what any other officer would have done. And
officer Richter's testimony was that he felt hike his actions
were reasonable. With regard to -- so question number 5, you
should answer no, question number 6, even if you were to
believe that the -- that the arrest was violative of
Mr. Rynearson's constitutional rights, question number 6,
10
asking do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that
11
defendant Richter is entitled to qualified immunity in his
12
arrest, and that answer should be yes, he is entitled to
13
qualify immunity, even if you answer the other one no -- or
14
yes, rather. Turning quickly to the alleged First Amendment
15
violation, retaliatory arrest, that is a little bit confusing
16
in the charge, but what it says is that if Mr. -- if officer
17
Richter had probable cause to arrest Mr. Rynearson for
18
anything, for any of the two charges above, then he could not
19
have violated his constitutional rights under the retaliatory
20
arrest portion. So the Judge points that out to you on
21
page 7 of the charge where he states after the three elements
22
that gave person's conduct gives a police officer probable
23
cause to believe he or she is guilty of a crime, that
24
individual cannot make a claim for retaliatory arrest. So if
25
officer Richter had probable cause to make the arrest in the

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
48
first place, retaliatory arrest, you have to answer no to.
Additionally, even if you don't agree, the plaintiff also has
not proved, in my opinion, the second element of the First
Amendment tall, retaliation claim and that is that the
defendants, the actions of defendant Richter caused plaintiff
Rynearson to suffer injury that would chill a person of
ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Rynearson has been
chilled in any manner of continuing to question -- to exercise
10
the same kind of activity that he was engaging in at the time
11
--
12
13
14
15
16
MR. MALDONADO: Objection, Your Honor, that is not

the law.
THE COURT: The jury will read the jury charge and
follow those instructions.
MR. RALLS: There is no evidence of that. Turning
17
to -- so your answer to question number 9 on the First
18
Amendment violation, retaliatory arrest question, question
19
number 9 should be no. There was no violation, First
20
Amendment violation because officer Richter had probable cause
21
to stop and arrest Mr. Rynearson. Turning to the damages,
22
what sum of money now if paid in cash would fairly and
23
reasonably compensate plaintiff Rynearson for his mental
24
anguish and compensatory damages? The judge has told you in
25
the charge what constitutes mental anguish, and in this case,

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
49
the judge has told you on page 11 that to recover compensatory
damages for mental and emotional distress, you have to show
more than hurt feelings, anger and us from investigation,
those are just simply a part of life and not the types of harm
that can support a mental anguish claim. In this particular
case, that is what happened. He got mad. He was -- he had
hurt feelings. He was angry. He was frustrated, and that's
what he told you, that he was frustrated, but that is not the
kind of mental anguish that we are talking about that will
10
support an award for mental anguish in this case. So it is my
11
position that in question number 13 you should answer that
12
question zero. Not only because of that, but because the
13
actions, it was not the actions of officer Richter that caused
14
Mr. Rynearson any damages. It was the actions of
15
Mr. Rynearson that put him in jail that afternoon, that made
16
him sit in jail for six hours and made him have to call his
17
officer and tell his superior officer and tell him what had
18
happened. So the answer to that question is no. The
19
plaintiff has not proved that the result, that proximate cause
20
of his damages were the actions of Mr. Richter, of officer
21
Richter. Question number 14 is whether, if you find that
22
there was a technical violation. There was no technical
23
violation here. There was a violation. There was an arrest
24
that was supported by probable cause and there was no
25
technical violation of Mr. Rynearson's constitutional rights.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
50
So that should be zero. Lastly, what sum of money should be
paid to Rynearson son by offer Richter in punitive damages?
Officer Richter was doing exactly what he was -- what his job
was.
He saw a violation. His job was to enforce the
traffic laws in the City of San Antonio and to keep downtown
San Antonio safe for everyone. He saw a traffic violation in
a particularly congested intersection. He did exactly what he
should have done, which is pull that individual over to make
10
-- to make that person aware of what had occurred, what he had
11
done and how dangerous that intersection was and why you
12
should signal when you make a turn.
13
He did exactly what his job required him to do. You
14
cannot punish officer Richter for his actions in this case.
15
He was certainly not malicious. You heard him testify from
16
the witness stand.
17
He was not malicious toward Mr. Rynearson in this
18
case. Nor was he recklessly in disregard of Mr. Rynearson's
19
constitutional rights. He exercised his discretion as a
20
police officer to effect an arrest of Mr. Rynearson because
21
Mr. Rynearson had broken the law in two ways. One, the
22
traffic violation and, 2, the failure to tender his license
23
and insurance. What I would like -- first of all, I want to
24
make -- say something about objections. Of I told you at the
25
outset of this case that I may have -- may make some

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
51
objections during the course of the trial. I may have done --
I may have done something else during the course of the trial
that irritated you all or -- or that you didn't like. If in
fact, I did, please hold that against me and not my client.
Secondly, the plaintiff's lawyer will have a chance to get up
here and talk again and when he does, I won't get another
chance, because he, the plaintiff has the burden of proof but
I would like for you to go back into the jury room and think
about what I may have said in response to what the plaintiff's
10
argument is in the next go round. So ladies and gentlemen,
11
thank you very much for your time here. Thank you for helping
12
us to resolve this question, these questions. We sincerely
13
appreciate your performing your civic duty in coming down
14
here. I am glad it was a short trial for you. Thank you
15
again.
16
17
18
THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel. And Mr. Maldonado,

you have five minutes.
MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and
19
gentlemen of the jury, a few points. Humans are creatures of
20
habit. Mr. Rynearson testified about the fact that he is a
21
pilot in the Air Force, and how what he does has trained him
22
to be procedural in his work, the procedural aspects of his
23
work, checking gauges, checking altitude, checking the other
24
plane's or individuals working with him, turning switch, knobs
25
here and there. He takes that into his daily life. Humans
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
52
are creatures of habit. I suggest to you whether you believe
that, in your own lives, in the lives of other people, whether
he would have, as he stated to you, put on that signal that
day. This was a very quick interaction. Fifteen seconds, 20
tops. Officer, why did you stop me? Why did you stop me?
Officer confirmed that you stopped me without cause. Exit the
vehicle. Officer confirmed, confirm that you are telling me
to exit the car without cause. Exit the vehicle and then in
handcuffs. Defense counsel has pointed out in the
10
instructions that a reasonable officers would have concluded
11
that he failed to display -- Mr. Rynearson failed to display
12
his driver's license and proof of insurance. Remember the
13
testimony. He had them on his hands. Officer Richter could
14
see them, they were having a conversation. Mr. Rynearson was
15
asking a very simple question to officer Richter. Why did you
16
stop me? When you return to the jury room to deliberate, use
17
your common sense. How quickly could this have happened, this
18
interaction? This was not a 30-minute discuss of give me your
19
documents, you violated my constitutional rights. That's not
20
what happened. Fifteen seconds. And Mr. Rynearson ended up
21
handcuffed, in the back of a police car and six hours of his
22
time in the jail. We ask for you to return a verdict in favor
23
of Mr. Rynearson and award him compensatory damages and what
24
we requested and assess punitive damages in the amounts that
25
we requested. Thank you, jurors. Thank you, Your Honor.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
53
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for you
all to deliberate. I know you have not had much time to meet
each other, but you first need to select someone to serve as
the foreperson. Try to select someone who will give everybody
the opportunity to speak if they so desire. And then
otherwise we await your verdict. While you are in that jury
deliberation room, no outside influences. No one using
cellphones or smart phones to conduct any independent
research. All your questions about what the law comes from
10
the instructions I gave you. And then all the facts came from
11
the evidence presented in this case. Otherwise we await your
12
verdict. All rise for the jury. 1026.
13
THE COURT: I don't anticipate this will be lengthy
14
deliberations, maybe I will be wrong about that but if you all
15
will stay in the area. If you are going to leave the area, if
16
you would provide Becky your cellphone numbers so we can
17
contact you.
18
19
MR. MALDONADO: Your Honor, what is Court's rules

about talking to the jury after the verdict?
20
THE COURT: Just because I know the two of you I
21
will let you go back. Normally I after the verdict go in and
22
thank them. I will bring the two of you along but not your
23
clients.
24
MR. MALDONADO: I understand, Your Honor.
25
(recess at 10:27 a.m. Test test test test test test

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
54
test test test test test test test test test test test test
test test test test Waiting in courtroom for verdict at
1:32 p.m. test test 1:35 p.m.
THE COURT: Please be seated. Ladies and gentlemen
miss understanding you have reached a verdict; is that
correct?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Who serves as the foreperson? Could you
pass the verdict form? Thank you. The verdict is in proper
10
form. And signed and dated.
11
Ladies and gentlemen, I am going read your verdict,
12
please listen carefully because at the end of my reading, one
13
or more of the lawyers may want to question you individually
14
as to whether or not this is your verdict.
15
As to question number 1, do you find by pa
16
preponderance of the evidence that on September 7, 2009
17
defendant Richter violated plaintiff Rynearson's Fourth
18
Amendment right to be free from a seizure?
19
Traffic stop without reasonable suspicion? The
20
answer was no. Accordingly the jury did not answer questions
21
2, 3 and 4. Question 5. Do you find from a preponderance of
22
the evidence that on September 7, 2009 defendant Richter
23
violated plaintiff Rynearson's Fourth Amendment right to be
24
free from arrest without probable cause?
25
The answer was no. Accordingly question 6, 7, and
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
55
8 were not answered. Question 9. Do you find from a
preponderance of the evidence that on September 7, 2009
defendant Richter violated plaintiff Rynearson's First
Amendment right to be free from retaliatory arrest as a result
of his free speech, the answer was no.
Accordingly, questions ten, 11 and 12 were not
answered. And as a result of that verdict, questions 13, 14
and 15 were zero. Does anyone want the jury polled?
MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor. At that.
10
THE COURT: As.
11
COURTROOM DEPUTY: As I call our your names, please
12
answer yes or no to the question. The question to each of you
13
will is this. This is your verdict? Mr. Barnes.
14
A. Yes.
15
16
17
Ms. Moody?
A. Yes.
Ms. Boatwright?
18
A. Yes Mr. Cunningham.
19
A. Yes Ms. Anderson.
20
A. Yes Mr. Isaac.
21
A. Yes.
22
A. Mr. West?
23
A. Yes.
24
THE COURT: The verdict is in proper form and it
25
stands. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my colleagues and

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT
56
I, I would like to thank you for your jury service here in
federal court in San Antonio. At this time I am going to
excuse you back to the jury deliberation room and I will go
back there and thank you individually for your service. All
rise for the jury, please.
THE COURT: Please seethe. The please be seated.
In accordance with the jury's verdict we will today or
attorney enter a judgment reflecting that plaintiff take
nothing. Do you still wish to speak with the jurors?
10
11
THE COURT: Okay.
12
THE COURT: Why don't you and Mr. Ralls accompany
13
me. You go through that door right there. And we will see
14
what they have to say.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROUGH TRANSCRIPT

Rynearson v. Richter Trial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rynearson v. Richter Trial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

November 9, 2015. Digital 958.

THE COURT: Thank you. Please be seated.

MR. MALDONADO: 11-C V 705, Richard Rynearson.

MR. MALDONADO: Rynearson, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Rynearson, thank you. Versus Edwin

Richter. Appearances, please.

MR. MALDONADO: In Rynearson is present, Your Honor.

MR. RALLS: Good morning, Your Honor, mark recalls

Edwin Richter is present.

THE COURT: Thank you. We need to take up I guess

time, the only one that comes in the case in chief is

Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. Defendants 1 as well, it is the

plaintiff report, it is the police report prepared by officer

THE COURT: Any objection to plaintiff's 1 which is

file:///Users/richardrynearson/Desktop/110915%20jury%20trial%20rynearson%20v%20richter.txt[11/12/15, 7:29:42 PM]

THE COURT: That's admitted.

THE COURT: Do I have an exhibit list from you,

MR. MALDONADO: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I need to get it reprinted, it didn't

get to my book. Can you get me a copy?

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Are there any other plaintiff's exhibits

that are unobjected to?

MR. MALDONADO: Plaintiff's Exhibit -- well,

Court ruled on on October 22nd was Plaintiff's Exhibit 5. And

Mr. Ralls did object to it and the Court ruled on it, I am

debating whether I will use it.

THE COURT: Okay. Then we will reserve that one

until you decide whether to use it and if so whether there is

MR. RALLS: Well, Your Honor, I don't know if he is

file:///Users/richardrynearson/Desktop/110915%20jury%20trial%20rynearson%20v%20richter.txt[11/12/15, 7:29:42 PM]

THE COURT: Then that takes care of that.

THE COURT: Any objections or any exhibits from the

MR. RALLS: Your Honor, I think the only exhibit

that the defendants are going to have is Exhibit number 1, the

THE COURT: Okay. That takes care of exhibits,

unless something changes during the course of the trial. In

that event we will approach the bench.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MALDONADO: And I was going to ask for a

clarification for that, Your Honor. There was, if the Court

remembers, an issue about exhibits relating to the

September 2011 refusal to obey am order. There is a reprimand

the evidence on the promotion on the May 2010 promotion is

promotion issue -- we can't raise that in front of the jury

and request damages. So I just want to confirm that that

file:///Users/richardrynearson/Desktop/110915%20jury%20trial%20rynearson%20v%20richter.txt[11/12/15, 7:29:42 PM]

means that any exhibits relating to 2011, September 2011,

refusal to obey an order won't come in.

THE COURT: What I ruled on last time was strictly

evidentiary rules, they are just rulings on motions in limine.

lawful command was not coming in at this point in time and I

granted the motion in limine on that point, so that goes --

that ruling would prohibit the defendant from referencing that

issue in front of the jury unless they first approach me and

we discuss why it is relevant and not 403 at that time. And

MR. MALDONADO: Thank you, Your Honor. Anything

exhibits, Your Honor, I just want to bring to the Court's

the Court and Mr.

MR. RALLS: Know.

THE COURT: Thank you thank you, there were no

further discussions other than that.

file:///Users/richardrynearson/Desktop/110915%20jury%20trial%20rynearson%20v%20richter.txt[11/12/15, 7:29:42 PM]