context: It failed to remind the jury that racially discriminatory motivation is a critical element of a section 1981 case. If a jury consults an external source and treats that source as complete, omissions in the information contained therein can be just as prejudicial as an affirmative misstatement.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 846 F.2d 1148, 1150-51
citation_a.parenthetical: in medical malpractice action, prejudicial error occurred when district court read jury a misleading dictionary definition of "differentiated" in response to its question regarding the meaning of "poorly differentiated tumor"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 505 (9th Cir.1987) (the Ninth Circuit found prejudicial error when a juror consulted a dictionary and considered an incomplete definition of “malice”); cf. Harold v. Corunn, 846 F.2d 1148, 1150-51 (8th Cir.1988) (in medical malpractice action, prejudicial error occurred when district court read jury a misleading dictionary definition of “differentiated” in response to its question regarding the meaning of “poorly differentiated tumor”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 812 F.2d 499, 505
citation_b.parenthetical: the Ninth Circuit found prejudicial error when a juror consulted a dictionary and considered an incomplete definition of "malice"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 505 (9th Cir.1987) (the Ninth Circuit found prejudicial error when a juror consulted a dictionary and considered an incomplete definition of “malice”); cf. Harold v. Corunn, 846 F.2d 1148, 1150-51 (8th Cir.1988) (in medical malpractice action, prejudicial error occurred when district court read jury a misleading dictionary definition of “differentiated” in response to its question regarding the meaning of “poorly differentiated tumor”).