Shaun Martin's California Appellate Report doesn't have comments, so I'll post one here about his blog post here, which discusses a prisoner civil rights suit.
The inmate alleged and at trial testified that a prison guard roughed him up. The prison guard also testified and denied the allegation. The inmate lost.
From this, Shaun concludes the that jury necessarily found that the inmate lied. (Shaun argues that this further supports the district court's decision to award costs, which was vacated on appeal.)
This seems like a pretty basic error. The prisoner had the burden to prove that the guard roughed him up. So the jury could have believed the testimony of both witnesses equally and still held for the defendant. Am I missing something?