United States District Court, E.D. California
FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is
my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.
A copy of these instructions will be available in the jury
room for you to consult.
your duty to weigh and to evaluate all the evidence received
in the case and, in that process, to decide the facts. It is
also your duty to apply the law as I give it to you to the
facts as you find them, whether you agree with the law or
not. You must decide the case solely on the evidence and the
law and must not be influenced by any personal likes or
dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. You will recall
that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of
must follow all these instructions and not single out some
and ignore others; they are all important. Please do not read
into these instructions or into anything I may have said or
done any suggestion as to what verdict you should return-that
is a matter entirely up to you.
Indictment is not evidence. The defendant has plead not
guilty to the charges. The defendant is presumed to be
innocent unless and until the government proves the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the defendant
does not have to testify or present any evidence to prove
innocence. The government has the burden of proving every
element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The
defendant has no burden of proof.
here only to determine whether the defendant is guilty or not
guilty of the charges in the indictment. The defendant is not
on trial for any conduct or offense not charged in the
of the presumption of innocence, a defendant does not have to
prove innocence. The burden of proof is always on the
government and never shifts to the defendant.
burden on the government is to prove every element of the
charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable
doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced that the
defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government
prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common
sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise
from a careful and impartial consideration of all the
evidence, or from lack of evidence.
after a careful and impartial consideration of all the
evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
that a defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find that
defendant not guilty. However, if after a careful and
impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is
guilty, it is your duty to find that defendant guilty.
have heard testimony that the defendant made a statement. It
is for you to decide (1) whether the defendant made the
statement, and (2) if so, how much weight to give to it. In
making those decisions, you should consider all the evidence
about the statement, including the circumstances under which
the defendant may have made it.
Norris has testified. You should treat this testimony just as
you would the testimony of any other witness.
evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are
(1) the sworn testimony of any witness;
(2) the exhibits received into evidence; and
(3) any facts to which the parties have agreed.
parties stipulated to certain facts that have been stated to
you. You should therefore treat these facts as having been
proved and conclusively established.
reaching your verdict you may consider only the testimony and
exhibits received into evidence. The following things are not
evidence and you may not consider them in deciding what the
1. Questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the
lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses.
Although you must consider a lawyer's questions to
understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer's
questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers have
said in their opening statements, closing arguments and at
other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence,
but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them
differ from the way the lawyers state them, your memory of
2. Any testimony that I have excluded, stricken, or
instructed you to disregard is not evidence. In addition,
some evidence was received only for a limited purpose; when I
have instructed you to consider certain evidence in a limited
way, you must do so.
3. Charts and summaries shown to you in order to help explain
the evidence in the case. These charts and summaries were not
admitted in evidence and will not go into the jury room with
you. They are not themselves evidence or proof of any facts.
If they do not correctly reflect the facts or figures shown
by the evidence in the case, you should disregard the charts
and summaries and determine the facts from the underlying
4. Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not
in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely
on the evidence received at the trial.
may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct
proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what
that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or
more facts from which you could find another fact.
to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either
can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction
between the weight to be given to either direct or
circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much
weight to give to any evidence.
deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which
testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You
may believe everything ...