United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
of the jury, now it is time for me to instruct you about the
law that you must follow in deciding this case. I will start
by explaining your duties and the general rules that apply in
every criminal case. Then I will explain the elements, or
parts, of the crime that the defendant is accused of
committing. Then I will explain some rules that you must use
in evaluating testimony and evidence. And 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 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.
OF INNOCENCE, BURDEN OF PROOF, REASONABLE DOUBT
know, the defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime
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 crime 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 crime 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. Mr. Fentress's and Mr. Shipp's opening
statements are not evidence. Likewise, Mr. Fentress's and
Mr. Shipp's closing arguments are not evidence. My legal
rulings are not evidence. And my comments and questions are
the trial I did not let you hear the answers to some of the
questions that the lawyers asked. I also 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
lives, we often look at one fact and conclude from it that
another fact exists. In law we call this an
"inference." A jury is allowed to make reasonable
inferences, unless otherwise instructed. Any inferences you
make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in
existence of an inference does not change or shift the burden
of proof from the government to the defendant.
AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
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.
Another 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.
me suggest some things for you to consider in evaluating each
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
yourself how good the witness's memory seemed to be. Did
the witness seem able to accurately remember what happened?
yourself if there was anything else that may have interfered
with the witness's ability to perceive or remember the
yourself how the witness acted while testifying. Did the
witness appear honest? Or did the witness appear to be lying?
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.
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 deliberate.
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 ...