United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville
of the jury, now it is time for me to instruct you about the
law that you must follow in deciding this case.
start by explaining your duties and the general rules that
apply in every criminal case.
will explain the elements, or parts, of the crime that the
defendant is accused of committing.
will explain some rules that you must use in evaluating
particular testimony and evidence.
last, I will explain the rules that you must follow during
your deliberations in the jury room, and the possible
verdicts that you may return.
listen very carefully to everything I say.
have two main duties as jurors. The first 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 way.
second duty is to take the law that I give you, apply it to
the facts, and decide if the government has proven 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. Perform
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.
know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crimes
charged in the second superseding 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
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 proven 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; the exhibits that I
allowed into evidence; and the stipulations that the lawyers
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. I may also have ruled that
you could not see some of the exhibits that the lawyers
wanted you to see. And sometimes I ordered you to disregard
things that you saw or heard, or I struck things from the
record. You must completely ignore all of these things. Do
not even think about them. Do not speculate about what a
witness might have said or what an exhibit might have shown.
These things are not evidence, and you are bound by your oath
not to let them influence your 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
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.
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) Ask yourself if the witness testified inconsistently
while on the witness stand, or if the witness said or did
something (or failed to say or do something) at any other
time that is inconsistent with what the witness said while
testifying. If you believe that the witness was inconsistent,
ask yourself if this makes the witness's testimony less
believable. Sometimes it may; other times it may not.
Consider whether the inconsistency was about something
important, or about some unimportant detail. Ask yourself if
it seemed like an innocent mistake, or if it seemed
(G) 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.
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 numbers.
is one more general subject that I want to talk to you about
before I begin ...