On the morning of June 4, 2012, plaintiffs’ decedent Victor Ortega, 31, a furniture mover, got into an argument with his wife and kicked his bare foot out, which made contact with his wife’s mouth, causing her to bleed. As a result, the wife called 9-1-1 to allegedly request medical assistance. When San Diego police officers arrived in response to the call, Ortega fled from his Mira Mesa home. Officer Jonathan McCarthy then drove around in an attempt to find Ortega. When he encountered Ortega, he ultimately took him to the ground and fell on top of him. During the encounter, a gun had apparently come loose from McCarthy’s elastic ankle holster. A struggle then occurred on the ground and McCarthy attempted to Ortega. However, McCarthy eventually lunged over Ortega and pulled out his primary pistol. While turning to face Ortega, McCarthy fired two shots in rapid succession, killing Ortega almost immediately. One shot struck Ortega in the abdomen (by the belly button) and the other shot struck the back of his neck. The decedent’s wife, Shakina Ortega (acting individually and on behalf of her husband’s estate, and their two minor children, Tamia Ortega and Jacob Ortega), sued McCarthy and McCarthy’s employers, the San Diego Police Department and the city of San Diego. She alleged that McCarthy’s actions constituted violations of her husband’s Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, resulting in his wrongful death. She also alleged that the city and the police department were liable for McCarthy’s actions. The police department was ultimately let out of the case, and the matter continued against McCarthy and the city. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that McCarthy was negligent in the use of excessive force and that McCarthy should have used pepper spray or a Taser, picked up the handgun, and/or held the decedent’s neck down, as opposed to using deadly force. Counsel also questioned McCarthy’s version of events, noting that McCarthy appeared to have changed his story. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that McCarthy first told his sergeant that the decedent had grabbed the loose backup gun and pointed it at him, but then changed his story when the decedent’s DNA was not found on the backup gun. Counsel also noted that McCarthy claimed he remembered seeing the decedent’s hands coming toward his primary service pistol with vivid clarity, but could not recall if he was on one knee, both, or getting up at the time he fired. Thus, counsel argued that McCarthy’s account of the events was inconsistent when compared with the evidence. The plaintiffs’ non-retained San Diego laboratory technician testified that the decedent tested positive for gunshot residue on his hands, suggesting that they were outstretched in front of the gun when the shots were fired. The laboratory technician also testified that there was no stippling on the decedent’s torso, indicating that the decedent’s torso was further away from the gun than his hands. However, a crucial issue was how the decedent could be shot in the abdomen (by the belly button) and then again in the back of the neck in about three-tenths of a second. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that McCarthy took two steps away from the decedent and then fired two shots while the decedent was in a flexed forward, submissive position. Counsel also noted that people near the confrontation believed an arrest was imminent, as they heard McCarthy begin to take the decedent into custody, and that they were surprised to hear gunshots a few moments later. (However, none of the people were in a position to see the altercation.) Thus, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that there was evidence to show that the decedent posed no threat and was complying with McCarthy’s requests and that McCarthy was in a position of power when the shots were fired. The plaintiffs’ human factors expert testified about the timing of the shots and a police officer’s training. However, on cross-examination, the expert testified about the inability of any human to make coherent, deliberate decisions in the time given during the subject incident, which was less than a second, and that McCarthy’s firing was a “trained response” to the decedent’s actions. He also testified about the inability of any human to accurately remember things around them when confronted with a high stress, deadly force situation, like what position the decedent body was in when McCarthy fired. Defense counsel also noted that the plaintiffs’ police procedures expert opined, during cross-examination, that the use of force was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances that faced McCarthy. Defense counsel noted that there were no eyewitnesses to the shooting, although one woman watched the altercation from across the street. She claimed that the decedent, who was larger than McCarthy, appeared to be actively resisting up until the moment of the shooting and that McCarthy looked to be having a tough time. She also recalled that during the struggle, the decedent yelled, “Get off me!” and “I’m going to sue you.” The woman further claimed that she could not see the handcuffs, but assumed that McCarthy was handcuffing the decedent because McCarthy was on top of the decedent and had one arm pinned behind the decedent’s back. Defense counsel argued that the decedent’s wife called 9-1-1 to report that her husband had beaten her. Counsel contended that the decedent’s wife had testified at trial that her husband did not intentionally kick her in the mouth, resulting in the need for two stitches in her lip, but that the incident was unintentional, an accident, and that she made up what happened when she spoke with the police. Defense counsel argued that the wife was attempting to downplay the claims of domestic violence that set the incident into motion and that there were about a dozen prior domestic violence reports during their eight-year marriage, resulting in at least two arrests, and that neighbors also reported problems with them. Thus, defense counsel contended that when the police arrived at the scene, the decedent attempted to flee and then resisted arrested, once confronted by McCarthy. McCarthy claimed that the decedent would not go willingly and that because he would never be able to handcuff the decedent while they were standing up and the decedent was resisting, he took Ortega to the ground by using a leg sweep to topple them. However, during the altercation, McCarthy’s gun had come loose from his elastic ankle holster. He claimed that once on the ground, the struggle continued, but he was able to gain control while on top of the decedent. McCarthy testified that he was eventually able to pull the decedent’s left arm from underneath him and cuff it, but that as he was going to try to cuff the right hand, the decedent’s hand shot up to the fallen backup revolver, which was still lying on the ground above the decedent’s head. McCarthy claimed he swatted the decedent’s hand away from the revolver and shoved the gun out of the decedent’s reach. McCarthy claimed he then lunged over the decedent, losing his position of power, and positioned himself between the decedent and the revolver in a narrow breezeway. He testified that he did this because he wanted to get between the gun and the decedent before the decedent could advance. McCarthy claimed he then drew his primary service pistol, spun toward the decedent, and saw the decedent lunging at him from the ground with hands outstretched. He alleged that as a result, he fired two shots in rapid succession, killing the decedent almost immediately. Thus, McCarthy claimed he shot at the decedent in self-defense. The defense’s expert criminalist agreed with the plaintiff’s non-retained San Diego laboratory technician that there was no stippling on the decedent’s torso, indicating that the decedent’s torso was further away than his hands at the time of the shooting. However, the expert criminalist opined that the finding was consistent with someone being shot while lunging toward the gun with hands outstretched. The defense’s biomechanical engineering expert testified about the decedent’s body position at the time of the shooting. He opined that during the shooting, which took place in about three-tenths of a second, it was possible for the decedent to be shot in the abdomen and then in the back of the neck, and that the shooting could have only occur one way, a way that was consistent with McCarthy’s statement., Victor Ortega sustained two gunshot wounds, one in the abdomen, by the belly button, and the other in the back of his neck. He subsequently died at the scene. He was 31 years old. He was survived by his wife, Shakina Ortega; his minor daughter, Tamia Ortega, and his minor son, Jacob Ortega. The plaintiffs’ psychiatry expert testified about Ms. Ortega’s alleged mental damages and the plaintiffs’ psychology expert testified about Tamia’s alleged emotional damages. The experts opined that Ms. Ortega and Tamia did not have post-traumatic stress disorder, but did have a PTSD-type of emotional distress. Both experts, as well as the defense’s psychiatry expert, opined that Ms. Ortega also suffered from guilt as a result of calling the police and allegedly lying to them about the domestic violence incident that ultimately led to the death of her husband and father of her children. All the experts also opined that the family did suffer from emotional distress as a result of the loss they suffered when the decedent died and that the family would benefit from counseling and Ms. Ortega would benefit from antidepressants. Plaintiffs’ counsel, the former elected District Attorney for the county of San Diego, initially asked the jury to award the Ortega family $2 million in wrongful death damages for the family’s loss of love, comfort and society, plus $710,000 in economic damages. However, during closing arguments, plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the Ortega family about $7 million in total damages. The defense’s economics expert opined that Ms. Ortega’s economic damages were less than $77,000.