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.
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.
NO. 1 - 1.02
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 this case. 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.
know, the defendants have pleaded not guilty to the crimes
charged in the second superseding indictment. The second
superseding indictment is not any evidence at all of guilt.
It is just the formal way that the government tells a
defendant what crime he is accused of committing. It does not
even raise any suspicion of guilt.
each 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 each defendant not guilty unless the
government convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that each
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
NO. 3 - 1.04
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 facts that I have judicially
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 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.
NO. 4 -1.05
to consider only the evidence in the case. You should use
your common sense in weighing the evidence. Consider the
evidence 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 conclusion.
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 a defendant.
NO. 5 -1.06
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.
NO. 6 -1.07
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
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 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
NO. 7 -1.08
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 explaining the elements of the crime charged.
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
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 crime that the
defendant is accused of committing.
before I do that, I want to emphasize that the defendants are
only on trial for the particular crimes charged in the second
superseding indictment. Your job is limited to deciding
whether the government has proved the crimes charged.
keep in mind that whether anyone else should be prosecuted
and convicted for this crime is not a proper matter for you
to consider. The possible guilt of others is no defense to a
criminal charge. Your job is to decide if the government has
proved each defendant guilty. Do not let the possible guilt
of others influence your decision in any way.
NO. 9 - 2.01D
defendants have been charged in Count 1, and Defendant Watts
has also been charged with additional crimes. I will explain
to you in more detail shortly which defendants have been
charged with which crimes. But before I do that, I want to
emphasize several things.
number of charges is no evidence of guilt, and this should
not influence your decision in any way. And in our system of
justice, guilt or innocence is personal and individual. It is
your duty to separately consider the evidence against each
defendant on each charge, and to return a separate verdict
for each one of them. For each one, you must decide whether
the government has presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt
that a particular defendant is guilty of a particular charge.
decision on any one defendant or one charge, whether it is
guilty or not guilty, should not influence your decision on
any of the other defendants or charges.
NO. 10 -14.05
of the second superseding indictment charges the defendants
with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
heroin, methamphetamine, a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine, and a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of fentanyl. It is a crime for
two or more persons to conspire, or agree, to commit a drug
crime, even if they never actually achieve their goal.
conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership. For you to find
any one of the defendants guilty of the conspiracy charge,
the government must prove each and every one ...