United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
instructions will be in three parts: first, general rules
that define and control your duties as jurors; second, the
rules of law that you must apply in deciding whether the
Government has proven its case; and third, some rules for
your deliberations. A copy of these instructions will be
available to you in the jury room.
GENERAL RULES CONCERNING JURY DUTY
have two main duties as jurors. The first one is to decide
what the facts are from the evidence that you saw and heard
here in court. Deciding what the facts are is your job, not
mine, and nothing that I have said or done during this trial
was meant to influence your decision about the facts in any
second duty is to take the law that I give you, apply it to
the facts, and decide if the Government has proved the
Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is my job to
instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath
that you took at the beginning of the trial to follow the
instructions that I give you, even if you personally disagree
with them. This includes the instructions that I gave you
before and during the trial, and these instructions. All the
instructions are important, and you should consider them
together as a whole.
lawyers may have talked about the law during their arguments.
But if what they said is different from what I say, you must
follow what I say. What I say about the law controls.
these duties fairly. Do not let any bias, sympathy or
prejudice that you may feel toward one side or the other
influence your decision in any way.
Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Reasonable
know, the Defendant has pled not guilty to the crimes charged
in the indictment. The indictment is not any evidence at all
of guilt. It is just the formal way that the Government tells
the Defendant what crimes he is accused of committing. It
does not even raise any suspicion of guilt.
the Defendant starts the trial with a clean slate, with no
evidence at all against him, and the law presumes that he is
innocent. This presumption of innocence stays with him unless
the Government presents evidence here in court that overcomes
the presumption, and convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt
that he is guilty.
means that the Defendant has no obligation to present any
evidence at all, or to prove to you in any way that he is
innocent. It is up to the Government to prove that he is
guilty, and this burden stays on the Government from start to
finish. You must find the Defendant not guilty unless the
Government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is
Government must prove every element of the crimes charged
beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt. Possible
doubts or doubts based purely on speculation are not
reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on
reason and common sense. It may arise from the evidence, the
lack of evidence, or the nature of the evidence.
beyond a reasonable doubt means proof which is so convincing
that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making
the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are
convinced that the Government has proved the Defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty
verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not
must make your decision based only on the evidence that you
saw and heard here in court. Do not let rumors, suspicions,
or anything else that you may have seen or heard outside of
court influence your decision in any way.
evidence in this case includes only what the witnesses said
while they were testifying under oath, and the exhibits that
I allowed into evidence.
else is evidence. The lawyers' statements and arguments
are not evidence. Their questions and objections are not
evidence. My legal rulings are not evidence. And my comments
and questions are not evidence.
the trial I did not let you hear the answers to some of the
questions that the lawyers asked. Do not speculate about what
a witness might have said. These things are not evidence, and
you are bound by your oath not to let them influence you
decision in any way.
your decision based only on the evidence, as I have defined
it here, and nothing else.
should use your common sense in weighing the evidence.
Consider it in light of your everyday experience with people
and events, and give it whatever weight you believe it
deserves. If your experience tells you that certain evidence
reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to reach that
Direct & Circumstantial
some of you may have heard the terms "direct
evidence" and "circumstantial evidence."
evidence is simply evidence like the testimony of an
eyewitness which, if you believe it, directly proves a fact.
If a witness testified that he saw it raining outside, and
you believed him, that would be direct evidence that it was
evidence is simply a chain of circumstances that indirectly
proves a fact. If someone walked into the courtroom wearing a
raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying a wet
umbrella, that would be circumstantial evidence from which
you could conclude that it was raining.
your job to decide how much weight to give the direct and
circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between
the weight that you should give to either one, or say that
one is any better evidence than the other. You should
consider all the evidence, both direct and circumstantial,
and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.
Credibility of Witnesses
part of your job as jurors is to decide how credible or
believable each witness was. This is your job, not mine. It
is up to you to decide if a witness's testimony was
believable, and how much weight you think it deserves. You
are free to believe everything that a witness said, or only
part of it, or none of it at all. But you should act
reasonably and carefully in making these decisions.
suggest some things for you to consider in evaluating each
(a) Ask yourself if the witness was able to clearly see or
hear the events. Sometimes even an honest witness may not
have been able to see or hear what was happening, and may
make a mistake.
(b) Ask yourself how good the witness's memory seemed to
be. Did the witness seem able to accurately remember what
(c) Ask yourself if there was anything else that may have
interfered with the witness's ability to perceive or
remember the events.
(d) Ask yourself how the witness acted while testifying. Did
the witness appear honest? Or did the witness appear to be
(e) Ask yourself if the witness had any relationship to the
government or the defendant, or anything to gain or lose from
the case, that might influence the witness's testimony.
Ask yourself if the witness had any bias, or prejudice, or
reason for testifying that might cause the witness to lie or
to slant the testimony in favor of one side or the other.
(f) And ask yourself how believable the witness's
testimony was in light of all the other evidence. Was the
witness's testimony supported or contradicted by other
evidence that you found believable? If you believe that a
witness's testimony was contradicted by other evidence,
remember that people sometimes forget things, and that even
two honest people who witness the same event may not describe
it exactly the same way.
are only some of the things that you may consider in deciding
how believable each witness was. You may also consider other
things that you think shed some light on the witness's
believability. Use your common sense and your everyday
experience in dealing with other people. And then decide what
testimony you believe, and how much weight you think it
more point about the witnesses. Sometimes jurors wonder if
the number of witnesses who testified makes any difference.
Do not make any decisions based only on the number of
witnesses who testified. What is more important is how
believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think
their testimony deserves. Concentrate on that, not the
is one more general subject that I want to talk to you about
before I begin explaining the elements of the crimes charged.
The lawyers for both sides objected to some of the things
that were said or done during the trial. Do not hold that
against either side. The lawyers have a duty to object
whenever they think that something is not permitted by the
rules of evidence. Those rules are designed to make sure that
both sides receive a fair trial.
not interpret my rulings on their objections as any
indication of how I think the case should be decided. My
rulings were based on the rules of evidence, not on how I
feel about the case. Remember that your decision must be
based only on the evidence that you saw and heard here in
RULES OF LAW
concludes the part of my instructions explaining your duties
and the general rules that apply in every criminal case. In a
moment, I will explain the elements of the crimes that the
defendant is accused of committing.
before I do that, I want to emphasize that the Defendant is
only on trial for the particular crimes charged in the
indictment. Your job is limited to deciding whether the
government has proved the crimes charged.
NO. 1: Multiple
The Defendant has been charged with several crimes. The
number of charges is no evidence of guilt, and this should
not influence your decision in any way. It is your duty to
separately consider the evidence that relates to each charge,
and to return a separate verdict for each one. For each
charge, you must decide whether the Government has presented
proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty
of that particular charge.
decision on one charge, whether it is guilty or not guilty,
should not influence your decision on any of the other
NO. 2: Illegal Distribution of ...