...read 'em where you can understand 'em, obviously I might read 'em too fast, or stumble over something -- I hope I don't, but if I do, you do have a copy in the jury room to refer to.
Was there anything else you gentlemen needed to do before I proceeded to reading the instructions? All right.
All right. The faithful performance of your duties as jurors is essential to the administration of justice.
It is my duty as judge to inform you of the law applicable to this case by instructions, and it is your duty to accept and follow them as a whole, not singling out one instruction to the exclusion of others. You should not consider any rule of law with which you may be familiar unless it is included in my instructions.
It is your duty to determine the facts from the evidence produced in this trial. You are to apply the law as contained in these instructions to the facts and render your verdict upon the evidence and law. You should not permit sympathy, prejudice, or like or dislike of any party to this action or of any attorney to influence your findings in this case.
In deciding the issues you should consider the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence. The introduction of evidence in court is governed by law. You should accept without question my rulings as to the admissibility or rejection of evidence, drawing no inferences that by those rulings I have in any manner indicated my views on the merits of the case.
Opening statements, remarks during the trial and closing arguments of the attorneys are not evidence, but are made only to help you in understanding the evidence and applicable law. Any argument, statements, or remarks of the attorneys having no basis in the evidence should be disregarded by you.
I've not intended by anything I have said or done, or by any questions that I may have asked to intimate or suggest what you should find to be the facts, or that I believe or disbelieve any witness who testified. If anything that I have done or said has seemed to so indicate, you will disregard it.
In considering the evidence in this case you are not required to set aside your common knowledge, but you have a right to consider all of the evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You are the sole judges of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. In determining the credibility of any witness and the weight to be given his testimony, you may take into consideration his demeanor while on the witness stand, any prejudice for or against a party, his means of acquiring knowledge concerning any matter to which he testified, any interest he may have in the outcome of the case, the consistency or inconsistency of his testimony, its reasonableness or unreasonableness, and any other fact or circumstance tending to shed light upon the truth or falsity of his testimony.
An expert witness is a person who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education on the subject to which his testimony relates. An expert witness may give his opinion on questions and controversies. You may consider his opinion in the light of his qualifications and credibility, the reasons given for his opinion, and the facts and other matters upon which his opinion is based. You are not bound to accept an expert opinion as conclusive, but you should give it whatever weight you think it should have. You may disregard any opinion testimony if you find it to be unreasonable.
The State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the offense charged. On the other hand, the defendant is not required to prove his innocence. There is a presumption of the defendant's innocence in a criminal prosecution. In this case, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. is presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence attends and protects him throughout the trial and should continue and prevail in your minds until you are convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is not a mere possible or imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that arises from your consideration of the evidence, and one that would cause a careful person to pause and hesitate in the graver transactions of life. A juror is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt if, after an impartial consideration of all the evidence, he has an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.
Evidence that a witness previously made a statement which is inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, may be considered by you for the purpose of judging the credibility of the witness, but may not be considered by you as evidence of the truth of the matter set forth by that statement.
In this case, the State does not contend that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. acted alone in the commission of the offenses of three counts of capital murder. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another person when he is an accomplice -- an accomplice -- in the commission of an offense. An accomplice is one who directly participates in the commission of an offense or who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, agrees to aid, aids, or attempts to aid the other person or persons in the planning or committing the offense.
Purpose is defined: a person acts with purpose with respect to his conduct or a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature, or to cause such a result.
Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. is charged with three counts of capital murder. This charge, in each count, includes the lesser offenses of first-degree murder and second-degree murder for each count. You may find the defendant guilty of one of these offenses or you may acquit him outright. If you have a reasonable doubt as to which offense the defendant may be guilty of on each count, you may find him guilty only of the lesser offense. If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt of all offenses, you must find him not guilty.
Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. is charged with the offense of capital murder, three counts. To sustain this charge on each count, the State must prove the following things beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, that with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of any person, Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. or an accomplice caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, or Stevie Branch count two, or Chris Byers count three. Purpose is defined again: a person acts with purpose with respect to his conduct or a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature, or to cause such a result.
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of captital murder, you will then consider the charge of first-degree murder. To sustain the charge of first-degree murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr., with the purpose of causing the death of another person, caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Steven Branch in count two, and Christopher Byers in count three.
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of first-degree murder, you will then consider the charge of second-degree murder. To sustain the charge of second-degree murder, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. knowingly caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Steven Branch count two, and Christopher Byers in count three under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life or, that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to Michael Moore count one, Steven Branch count two, Christopher Byers count three, did cause the death of Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers.
Knowingly is defined: A person acts knowingly, or with knowledge, with respect to his conduct or the circumstances that exist at the time of his act when he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
Serious physical injury means: Physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or loss or protracted impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
In order to find that Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. acted with premeditated and deliberated purpose, you must find that he had the conscious object to cause death and that he formed that intention before acting as a result of weighing in the mind the consequences of a course of conduct as distinguished from acting upon sudden impulse, without exercise of reasoning power - powers. It is not necessary that this state of mind existed for any particular length of time, but it is necessary that it was befor -- for -- formed before the homicide was committed.
If you find Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. guilty of capital murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder of one or more counts, you will so indicate on the verdict form to be given to you. If you find Jessie Lloyd Misskelley Jr. not guilty of one or more counts, you will so indicate on the appropriate forms.
In your deliberations, the subject of punishment is not to be discussed or considered by you. If you return a verdict of guilty on any charge, the matter of punishment will be submitted to you separately.
Was there anything else, gentlemen?
All right, you may argue your case.
You want the verdict forms? I got them here.