Xref: world alt.fan.oj-simpson:66043 alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts:387
Newsgroups: alt.fan.oj-simpson.transcripts,alt.fan.oj-simpson
Path: world!uunet!in1.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!myra
From: [email protected] (Myra Dinnerstein)
Subject: JURY INSTRUCTORS
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 01:07:32 GMT
Approved: [email protected]
Lines: 603
Sender: [email protected]

All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard all
the evidence, and it is now my duty to instruct you on the law
that applies to this case.  After I conclude reading these
instructions to you, we will commence with the argument of
counsel.  The law requires that I read these instructions to you
here in open court.  Please listen carefully.  It is also my
personal policy that you will have these instructions in their
written form in the jury room to refer to during the course of
your deliberations.

You must base your decision on the facts and the law.  You have
two duties to perform first, you must determine the facts from
the evidence received in the trial and not from any other source.
A fact is something that is proved directly or circumstantially
by the evidence, or by stipulation.  A stipulation is an
agreement between the attorneys regarding the facts. Second you
must apply the law that I state to you to the facts, as you
determine them, and in this way, arrive at your verdict, and any
finding you were instructed to include with your verdict.

You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you, whether
or not you agree with the law.  If anything concerning the law
said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time
during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you
must follow my instructions.  You must not be influenced by pity
for a defendant or by prejudice against him.  You must not be
biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for
this offense, charged with a crime, or brought to trial.  None of
these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer
or assume from any or all of them that he is more likely to be
guilty than innocent.  You must not be influenced by mere
sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public
opinion, or public feeling.  Both the prosecution and the
defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously
consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law and reach a just
verdict, regardless of the consequences.

If any rule, direction or idea is repeated or stated in different
ways than these instructions, no emphasis is intended, and you
must not draw any inference because of its repetition.  Do not
single out any particular sentence or any individual point or
instruction, and ignore the others.  Consider the instructions as
a whole and each in light of all the others.  The order in which
the instructions are given has no significance as to their
relative importance.

Statements made by attorneys during the trial are not evidence,
although if the attorney has stipulated to or agreed to a fact,
you must regard that fact as conclusively proven.  If an
objection was sustained to a question, do not guess what the
answer might have been, do not speculate as to the reason for the
objection.  Do not assume to be true any insinuation suggested by
a question asked of a witness.  A question is not evidence, and
may be considered only as it enables you to understand the
answer.  Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence
that was rejected by the court, or any evidence that was stricken
by the court.  You must treat it as though you had never heard
it.

You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the
evidence received here in court in this trial and not from any
other source.  You must not make any independent investigation of
the facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which
there has been no evidence.  This means, for example, that you
must not on your own visit the scene, conduct experiments or
consult reference works or persons for additional information.
You must not discuss this case with any other person except a
fellow juror, and you must not discuss the case with a fellow
juror until the case is submitted to you for your decision, and
then only when all 12 jurors are present in the jury room.

Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings,
material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered
to prove the existence or non-existence of a fact.  Evidence is
either direct or circumstantial.  Direct evidence is evidence
that directly proves a fact without the necessity of an
inference.  It is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true,
establishes that fact.  Circumstantial evidence, is evidence that
if found to be true proves a fact from which an inference of the
existence of another fact may be drawn.  An inference is a
deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from
another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.  It
is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence.  They
may be proof also by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination
of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.  Both direct
evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of
proof.  Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.
However, a finding of guilt as to any crime, may not be based on
circumstantial evidence unless the proof circumstances are not
only one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty
of the crime, but two, cannot be reconciled with any other
rational conclusion.  Further, each fact which is essential to
complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the
defendant's guilt, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  In
other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may
be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact
or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests, must
be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count
is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which
points to the defendant's guilt, and the other to his innocence,
you must adopt that interpretation which points to the
defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation which points
to his guilt.  If, on the other hand, one interpretation of such
evidence appears to you to be reasonable, and the other
interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable
interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

If you find that before this trial, the defendant made a
willfully false or deliberately misleading statement concerning
the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider such
statement as a circumstance tending to prove consciousness of
guilt.  However, such conduct is not sufficient by itself to
prove guilt and its weight and significance, if any, are matters
for your determination.

Certain evidence was limited excuse me, certain evidence was
admitted for a limited purpose.  At the time this evidence was
admitted, you were admonished that it could not be considered by
you for any other purpose other than the limited purpose for
which it was admitted.  Do not consider such limited evidence for
any purpose, except a limited purpose for which it was admitted.
Neither side is required to call as witnesses, all persons who
may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the
evidence, or who may appear to have some knowledge of these
events, or to produce all objects or documents mentioned or
suggested by the evidence.

Testimony given by a witness at a prior proceeding, who was
unavailable at this trial, has been read to you from the
reporters transcript of that proceeding.  You must consider such
testimony as if it had been given before you in this trial.  With
the exception of Nurse Thano Peratis, evidence that on some
former occasion, a witness made a statement or statements that
were inconsistent or consistent with his or her testimony in this
trial, may be considered by you, not only for the purpose of
testing the credibility of the witness, but also as evidence of
the truth of the facts, as stated by the witness on such former
occasion.  Evidence of the Thano Peratis videotape statement,
which is People's exhibit 615, which may include statements that
were consistent or inconsistent with his former testimony,
presented by reading the transcript of his former testimony,
given before both excuse me, given at the preliminary hearing,
may be considered by you solely for the purpose of testing the
credibility of Mr. Peratis's former testimony.  If you disbelieve
a witness testimony that he or she no longer remember a certain
event, such testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement or
statements by him or her, describing that event.

Every person who testifies under oath is a witness.  You are the
sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to
be given the testimony of each witness.  In determining the
believability of a witness, you may consider anything that has a
tendency and reason to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the
testimony of the witness including, but not limited to any of the
following  the extent of the opportunity or the ability of the
witness to see or hear or otherwise become aware of any matter
about which the witness has testified, the effects, if any, from
the use of consumption of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants by
the witness at the time of the events about which the witness has
testified, or at the time of his or her testimony, the ability of
the witness to remember or to communicate any matter about which
the witness has testified, the character and quality of that
testimony, the demeanor and manner of the witness while
testifying, the existence of nonexistence of a biased interest or
other motive, evidence of the existence or non-existence of any
fact testified to by the witness, the attitude of the witness
toward this action or toward the giving of testimony, a statement
previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent
with the testimony of the witness, the character of the witness
for honesty or truthfulness or their opposites, an admission by
the witness of untruthfulness.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between his or her
testimony and that of others, if there were any, do not
necessarily mean that the witness should be discredited.  Failure
recollection is a common experience, and innocent misrecollection
is not uncommon.  It is also a fact that two persons witnessing
an incident or transaction often will see or hear it differently.
Whether a discrepancy pertains to a fact of importance, or only
to a trivial detail, should be considered in weighing it's
significance.

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or
her testimony, is to be distrusted in others.  You may reject the
whole testimony of a witness who has willfully testified falsely
as to a material point unless, from all the evidence, you believe
the probability of truth favors his or her testimony and other
particulars.

You are not bound to decide an issue of fact in accordance with
testimony of a number of witnesses which does not convince you,
as against the testimony of a lesser number or other evidence
which appeals to your mind with more convincing force.  You may
not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses
merely from caprice, whim, prejudice or from a desire to favor
one side as against the other.  You must not decide an issue by
the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have
testified on the opposing sides.  The final test is not in the
relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the
evidence.

You should give the testimony of a single witness whatever weight
you think it deserves.  However, testimony by one witness which
you believe concerning any fact is sufficient for the proof of
that fact.  You should carefully review all evidence upon which
the proof of such fact depends.  A person is qualified to testify
as an expert if he or she has special knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education sufficient to qualify him or
her, as an expert on the subject to which his or her testimony
pertains.  A duly qualified expert may give an opinion on
questions and controversy at a trial.  To assist you in deciding
such questions, you may consider the opinion with the reasons
given for it, if any, by the expert who gives the opinion.  You
may also consider the qualifications and the credibility of the
expert.  You are not bound to accept an expert opinion as
conclusive but should give to it the weight to which you find it
to be entitled.  You may disregard any such opinion if you find
it to be unreasonable.


In examining an expert witness, counsel may propound to him or
her a type of question known in the law as a hypothetical
question.  By such a question, the witness is asked to assume to
be true a set of facts and to give an opinion based upon that
assumption.  In permitting such a question, the Court does not
rule and does not necessarily find that all the assumed facts
have been proved.  The Court only determines that those assumed
facts are within the probable or possible range of the evidence.
It is for you, the jury, to find from all the evidence whether or
not the facts assumed in a hypothetical question have been
proved.  If you should find that any assumption in such question
has not been proved, you are to determine the effect of that
failure on the proof  Excuse me.  You are to determine the effect
of that failure of proof on the value and weight of the expert
opinion based on the assumed facts.

In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of
expert witnesses, you should weigh the opinion of one expert
against that of another.  In doing this, you should consider the
relative qualifications and credibility of the expert witnesses
as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts and other
matters upon which it was based.  In determining the weight to be
given the opinion expressed by any witness who did not testify as
an expert witness, you should consider his or her credibility,
the extent of his or her opportunity to perceive the matters upon
which his or her opinion is based and the reasons, if any, given
for it.  You are not required to accept such opinion but should
give to it the weight, if any, to which you find it to be
entitled.

The Court has admitted physical evidence, such as blood, hair and
fiber evidence, and experts' opinions concerning the analysis of
such physical evidence.  You are the sole judges of whether any
such evidence has a tendency and reason to prove any fact at
issue in this case.  You should carefully review and consider all
the circumstances surrounding each item of evidence, including,
but not limited to, its discovery, collection, storage and
analysis.  If you find any item of evidence does not have a
tendency and reason to prove any element of the crime's charge or
the identity of perpetrator of such of the crime's charge, you
must disregard such evidence.

You have heard testimony about frequency estimates calculated for
matches between known reference blood samples and some of the
bloodstain evidence items in this case.  The random match
probability statistic used by DNA experts is not the equivalent
of a statistic that tells you the likelihood of whether a
defendant committed a crime.  The random match probability
statistic is the likelihood that a random person in the
population would match the characteristics that were found in the
crime scene evidence and in the reference sample.  These
frequency estimates are being presented for the limited purpose
of assisting you in determining what significance to attach to
those bloodstain testing results.  Frequency estimates and
laboratory errors are different phenomena.  Both should be
considered in determining what significance to attach to
bloodstain testing results.

Evidence has been introduced for the purpose of showing that the
defendant committed crimes other than that for which he is on
trial.  Such evidence, if believed, was not received and may not
be considered by you to prove that the defendant is a person of
bad character or that he has a disposition to commit crimes.
Such evidence was received and may considered [sic] by you only
for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show a
characteristic method, plan or scheme in the commission of
criminal acts similar to the method, plan or scheme used in the
commission of the offense in this case, which would further tend
to show the existence of the intent, which is a necessary element
of the crime charge.  The identity of the person who committed
the crime, if any, of which the defendant is accused, or a clear
connection between the other offense and the one of which the
defendant is accused, so that it may be inferred that, if the
defendant committed the other offenses, the defendant also
committed the crimes charged in this case.  The existence of the
intent, which is necessary which is a necessary element of the
crime charged  the identity of the person who committed the
crime, if any, of which the defendant is accused, a motive for
the commission of the crime charged.

For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence,
you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all the evidence
all the other evidence in this case.  You are not permitted to
consider such evidence for any other purpose.  Within the meaning
of the preceding instructions, such other crime or crimes
purportedly committed by a defendant must be proved by a
preponderance of the evidence.  You must not consider such
evidence for any purpose unless you are satisfied that the
defendant committed such other crimes or crimes [sic].  The
prosecution has the burden of proving these facts by a
preponderance of the evidence.  Within this limited context,
preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more
convincing force and the greater probability of truth than that
opposed to it.  If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you
are unable to find that the evidence on either side of an issue
preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the
party who has the burden of proving it.  You should consider all
the evidence bear upon bearing upon every issue, regardless of
who produced it.

Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be
shown.  However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a
circumstance in this case.  Presence of motive may tend to
establish guilt.  Absence of motive may tend to establish
innocence.  You will therefore give its presence or absence, as
the case may be, the weight to which you find it to be entitled.

A defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right not be
compelled to testify.  You must not draw any inference from the
fact that a defendant does not testify.  Further, you must
neither discuss this matter, nor permit it to enter into your
deliberations in any way.  In deciding whether or not testify,
the defendant may choose to rely upon the state of the evidence
and upon the failure, if any, of the prosecution to prove beyond
a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged
against him.  No lack of testimony on the defendant's part will
make up for a failure of proof by the prosecution, so as to
support a finding against him on any such essential element.

An admission is a statement made by the defendant, other than at
his trial, which does not by itself acknowledge his guilt of the
crimes for which such defendant is on trial, but which statement
tends to prove his guilt when considered with the rest of the
evidence.  You are the exclusive judges as to whether the
defendant made an admission, and if so, whether such statement is
true in whole or in part.  If you should find that the defendant
did not make the statement, you must reject it.  If you find that
it is true in whole and in part, you may consider the part which
you find to be true.  Evidence of an oral admission of the
defendant should be viewed with caution.

No person may be convicted of a criminal offense unless there is
some proof of each element of the crime independent of any
admission made by him outside of this trial.  The identity of the
person who is alleged to have committed a crime is not an element
of the crime, nor is the degree of the crime.  Such identity or
degree of the crime may be established by an admission.

Witness Ron Shipp testified to a statement alleged to have been
made by the defendant concerning dreams.  You must first
determine whether such statement was made by the defendant.  If
you find the statement was not made by the defendant, you shall
disregard the statement.  If you find that the statement referred
to subconscious thoughts while asleep, you are to disregard the
statement.  If you find that the statement referred to an
expression of a desire or expectation, you may give to such
statement the weight to which you feel it is entitled.  Evidence
of oral statements by a defendant should be viewed with caution.

A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until
the contrary is proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt whether
his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of
not guilty.  This presumption places upon the prosecution the
burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows.  It is not a mere
possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is
open to some possible or imaginary doubt.  It is that state of
the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of
all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that
condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of
the truth of the charge.

The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable
doubt each element of the crimes charged in the information and
that the defendant was the perpetrator of any such charged
crimes.  The defendant is not required to prove himself innocent
or to prove that any other person committed the crimes charged.

In the crimes charged in counts one and two, there must exist a
union or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain specific
intent or mental state in the mind of the perpetrator.  Unless
such specific intent and/or mental state exists, the crime to
which they relate is not committed.  The crime of murder in the
second degree requires to specific intent to kill, known as
express malice.  The crime of murder in the first degree requires
the specific intent to kill, known as express malice, and the
mental state of premeditation and deliberation.  These terms are
more fully defined later in these instructions.

The specific intent or mental state with which an act is done,
may be shown by the circumstances surrounding the commission of
the act.  However, you may not find the defendant guilty of the
crimes charged in courts one and two or the crime of second
degree murder, which is a lesser crime, unless the proved
circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that
the defendant had the required specific intent or mental state,
but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational
conclusion.  Also, if the evidence as to any such specific intent
or mental state is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations,
one of which points to the existence of the specific intent or
mental state, and the other to the absence of the specific intent
or mental state, you must adopt that interpretation which points
to the absence of the specific intent or mental state.  If, on
the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence as to such
significant intent or mental state appears to you to be
reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you
must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the
unreasonable.

Evidence has been received for the purpose of showing that the
defendant was not present at the time and place of the commission
of the alleged crime for which he is here on trial.  If, after a
consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt
that the defendant was present at the time the crime was
committed, you must find him not guilty.

The defendant is accused in courts one and two of having
committed the crime of murder, a violation of Penal Code Section
187.  Every person who unlawfully kills a human being with malice
aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder, in violation of
Section 187 of the California Penal Code.  In order to prove such
crime, each of the following elements must be proved  one, a
human being was killed, two, the killing was unlawful, and,
three, the killing was done with malice aforethought.

Express malice is defined as when there is manifested an
intention unlawfully to kill a human being.  The mental state
excuse me when it is shown that a killing resulted from the
intentional doing of an act with express malice, no other mental
state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice
aforethought.  The mental state constituting malice aforethought
does not necessarily require any ill will or hatred of the person
killed.  The word, ``aforethought'' does not imply deliberation
of the lapse of considerable time.  It only means that the
required mental state must precede rather than follow the act.

All killing which is perpetrated by any kind of willful,
deliberate and premeditated killing, with express malice
aforethought is murder of the first degree.  The word
``willful'', as used in this instruction, means intentional.  The
world, ``deliberate'' means formed, or arrived at, or determined
upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of the
considerations for and against the proposed course of action.
The word, ``premeditated'' means considered beforehand.  If you
find that the killing was preceded and accompanied by a clear,
deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill, which was
the result of deliberation and premeditation, so that it must
have been formed upon pre-existing reflection and not under a
sudden heat of passion or other condition precluding the idea of
deliberation, it is murder of the first degree.

The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length
of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it
can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and
premeditated.  The time will vary with different individuals and
under varying circumstances.  The true test is not the duration
of time, but rather the extent of the reflection.  A cold,
calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short
period of time.  But a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even
though it includes an intent to kill, is not such deliberation
and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of
the first degree.

To constitute a deliberate and premeditated killing, the slayer
must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons
for and against such a choice and, having in mind the
consequences, he decides to and does kill.

Murder of the second degree is the unlawful killing of a human
being with malice aforethought, where there is manifested an
intention unlawfully to kill a human being, but the evidence is
insufficient to establish deliberation and premeditation.  Murder
is classified into two degrees and if you should find the
defendant guilty of murder, you must determine and state in your
verdict, whether you first the murder to be of the first or
second degree.

If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of
murder has been committed by the defendant, but you have a
reasonable doubt whether such a murder was murder of the first or
of the second degree, you must give the defendant the benefit of
the doubt and return a verdict fixing the murder as the second
degree.  Before you may return a verdict in this case, you must
also agree unanimously, not only as to whether the defendant is
guilty or not guilty, but also, if you should find him guilty of
an unlawful killing, you must agree unanimously as to whether he
is guilty of murder of the first degree or murder of the second
degree.

If you find the defendant in this case guilty of murder in the
first degree, you must then determine the following special
circumstance whether the following special circumstance is true
or not true.  The defendant has, in this case, been convicted of
at least one crime of murder in the first degree and one or more
crimes of murder in the first or second Degree.  The prosecution
has the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a special
circumstance is true, you must find it to be not true.  In order
to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true or
untrue, you must agree unanimously.  You will state in your
finding excuse me you will state your special finding as to
whether this special circumstance is or is not true on the form
that will be supplied to you.

To find the special circumstance referred to in these
instructions as multiple murders convictions is true, it must be
proved that the defendant has, in this case, been convicted of at
least one crime of murder in the first degree and one or more
crimes of murder in the first or second degree.  You are not
permitted to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to
be true, based upon circumstantial evidence unless the proved
circumstance is not only, one, consistent with the theory that a
special circumstance is true, but, two, cannot be reconciled with
any other rational conclusion.  Further, each fact which is
essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to
establish the truth of a special circumstance must be proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, before an inference essential to establish a
special circumstance may be found to have been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such
inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.  Also, if the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of
two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the truth
of a special circumstance and the other to its untruth, you must
adopt that interpretation which points to its untruth and reject
the interpretation which points to its truth.  If, on the other
hand, one interpretation of such evidence appears to you to be
reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you
must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the
unreasonable.

Each count charges a distinct crime.  You must decide each count
separately.  The defendant may be found guilty or not guilty of
either or both of the crimes charged.  Your finding as to each
count must be stated in a separate verdict form.  If you are not
satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty
of the crime charged, you may nevertheless convict him of any
lesser crime if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant is guilty of such lesser crime.

The crime of Second Degree Murder is a lesser to that of First
Degree Murder.  Thus, you are to determine whether the defendant
is guilty or not guilty of First Degree Murder, as charged in
Counts One and Two, or of any lesser crime.  In doing so, you
have discretion to choose the order in which you evaluate each
crime and consider the evidence pertaining to it.  You may find
it productive to consider and reach tentative conclusion on all
charges and lesser crimes, before reaching any final verdicts.
However, the Court cannot accept a guilty verdict on a lesser
crime unless you have unanimously found the defendant not guilty
of the greater crime.

It is alleged in Counts One and Two that in the commission of the
crime charged, the defendant personally used a deadly or
dangerous weapon.  If you find such defendant of the crime thus
charged or a lesser included crime, you must determine whether or
not such defendant personally used a deadly or dangerous weapon
in the commission of such crime.  A deadly or dangerous weapon
means any weapon, instrument or object that is capable of being
used to inflict great bodily injury or death.  The term, ``used a
deadly or dangerous weapon,'' as used in this instruction, means
to display such weapon in an intentionally menacing manner or
intentionally to strike or hit a human being with it.

The prosecution has the burden of proving the truth of this
allegation.  If you have a reasonable doubt whether if you have a
reasonable doubt that it is true, you must find it to be not
true.  You will include a special finding of that question in
your verdict using a form that will be supplied to you for that
purpose.

The purpose of the Court's instructions is to provide you with
the applicable law so that you may arrive at a just and lawful
verdict.  Whether some instructions apply will depend upon what
you find to be the facts.  Disregard any instruction which
applies to facts determined by you not to exist.  Do not conclude
that because an instruction has been given that the Court is
expressing any opinion as to the facts of this case.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the instructions
that I am going to give to you prior to the arguments of the
attorneys.  As I indicated to you, we will stand in recess until
Tuesday morning, September the 26th, to begin at nine o'clock
with the arguments of the attorneys.  It's an interesting date,
because if you'll recollect, those of you who came to us in the
first batch of jury selection, we actually started jury selection
on September 26, 1994, and I see some people recollect that date.

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.