O:\BATAILLO\JFB\Public\CASES\CRIMINAL\Cook, Lawrence ...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)8:07CR339) Plaintiff,))CLOSINGvs.)JURY INSTRUCTIONS) LAWRENCE RAY COOK,)) Defendant.)INSTRUCTION NO. 14INTRODUCTIONMembers of the jury, the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and during the trial, unless amended, remain in effect. I now give you some amended and additional instructions. Do not single out some instructions and ignore others. I urge you to review the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial before you begin to deliberate. You should take your notebooks to the jury room with you.INSTRUCTION NO. 15DISPOSITION DURING TRIALAt the beginning of the trial I told you that the defendant was accused of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Since the trial started, however, the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm has been disposed of. That charge is no longer before you, and the only crime that the defendant is charged with now is being a felon in possession of ammunition. You should not guess about or concern yourselves with the reason for this disposition. You are not to consider this fact when deciding if the government has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge that remains.INSTRUCTION NO. 16AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSEIf you find Lawrence Cook, at the time of the offense charged in the Indictment:1.Attained the ammunition at issue innocently and held it with no illicit purpose;and2.His possession of the ammunition was transitory, meaning that in light of the circumstances Mr. Cook took adequate measures to rid himself of possession of the ammunition as promptly as reasonably possiblethen you must find Mr. Cook “Not Guilty” of the crime of possession of ammunition by a felon.Mr. Cook must prove this defense of innocent possession by a preponderance of the evidence.INSTRUCTION NO. 17DEFINITION: PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCEBy a "preponderance of the evidence," I mean the greater weight of credible evidence. This is not determined by which party has the greater number of witnesses testifying about the facts and circumstances or by the number of exhibits. Preponderance of the evidence is determined by the amount of evidence which on the whole, when fully, fairly and impartially considered, makes the stronger impression on your mind and is more convincing as to its truth when weighed against the evidence the other party has presented.To prove something by a preponderance of evidence is to prove that it is more likely true than not. Each party is entitled to the benefit of any evidence tending to establish a claim, even though the other party introduced that evidence. If the evidence is equally balanced, a preponderance is not established.INSTRUCTION NO. 18DUTY OF JURYIt is your duty as jurors to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law as I give it to you to those facts. Each of you must follow my instructions on the law, even if you think the law is different or should be different. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice toward any party to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you.INSTRUCTION NO. 19REASONABLE DOUBTThe law presumes a defendant to be innocent of a crime. Thus a defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a “clean slate” – with no evidence against him. And the law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his or her affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs.A defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture. The burden is always on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case, has a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a charge, it must acquit. If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions -- one of innocence, the other of guilt -- the jury must, of course, adopt the conclusion of innocence.INSTRUCTION NO. 20REASONABLE INFERENCESWhile you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits that you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case.INSTRUCTION NO. 21CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSESIn deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness said, or only part of it, or none of it.In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witness's intelligence, the opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the witness's memory, any motives that witness may have for testifying a certain way, the manner of the witness while testifying, whether that witness said something different at an earlier time, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which the testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe.In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes hear or see things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider therefore whether a contradiction is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or only a small detail.INSTRUCTION NO. 22DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY CONCERNING PRIOR CONVICTIONSYou have heard evidence that the defendant, Lawrence Cook, was previously convicted of crimes. You may use that evidence only to help you decide whether to believe his testimony and how much weight to give it. That evidence does not mean that he committed the crime charged here, and you must not use that evidence as any proof of the crime charged in this case.INSTRUCTION NO. 23NOTESSome of you may have taken notes during the trial; others of you may have chosen not to take notes. If you did take notes, remember that those notes are not themselves evidence, but are instead merely memory aids. You must reach a verdict based upon your independent recollection of the evidence presented during the trial, not upon your notes or another juror's notes. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror as to what the testimony may have been.INSTRUCTION NO. 24ELECTION OF FOREPERSON; DUTY TO DELIBERATEIn conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules you must follow. I shall list those rules for you now.First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in court.Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement because a verdict - whether guilty or not guilty - must be unanimous. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict.Third, if a defendant is found guilty, the sentence to be imposed is my responsibility. You may not consider punishment in any way in deciding whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.Fourth, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the U.S. Marshal or the courtroom deputy, signed by one or more jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court. Remember that you should not tell anyone - including me - how your votes stand numerically.Fifth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I have given to you in my instructions. The verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must beunanimous. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should be – that is entirely for you to decide.Finally, the verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. You will take the verdict form to the jury room, and when each of you has agreed on a verdict for the defendant, your foreperson will fill in the form, sign and date it, and advise the marshal or courtroom deputy that you are ready to return to the courtroom. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- o bataillo jfb public cases criminal cook lawrence
- k bataillo jfb wppub cases criminal monnier william
- part i problem of punishment hls orgs
- monday august 13 2001
- administrative decisions u s department of veterans affairs
- chapter 5—history and structure of american law enforcement
- chapter 5 evaluating evidence and making a decision u s
- evidence nyu law
Related searches
- 100 free public criminal records
- california criminal public records search
- criminal cases with physical evidence
- are cps cases public record
- public criminal records free search
- federal criminal public records
- indiana criminal records public access
- criminal cases articles
- current criminal cases 2019
- wisconsin criminal records public access
- criminal cases with glass evidence
- wisconsin criminal court public access