From: [i--s--t] at [delphi.com] Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns Subject: Davidian Jury Instructions 1/7 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 01:25:56 -0500 The following is the text of the 67-page instructions to the jury of the Branch Davidian trial, to be read to the jury on Tuesday, Feb. 22, 1994 Page breaks will be shown by four dashes ---- Page 1 is a cover sheet, and is omitted. ======================================================================== IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION UNITES STATES OF AMERICA $ $ v. $ Criminal No. W-93-CR-046 $ BRAD EUGENE BRANCH (2), $ KEVIN WHITECLIFF (3), $ CLIVE DOYLE (4), $ JAIME CASTILLO (5), $ LIVINGSTONE FAGAN (6), $ PAUL GORDON FATTA (7), $ WOODROW KENDRICK, also known $ as BOB KENDRICK (8), $ NORMAN WASHINGTON ALLISON, also $ known as DELROY NASH (9), $ GRAEME LEONARD CRADDOCK (10), $ RENOS AVRAAM (11), and $ RUTH OTTMAN RIDDLE (12) $ COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY Members of the Jury: In any jury trial there are, in effect, two judges. I am one of the judges; the other is the jury. It is my duty to preside over the trial and to decide what evidence is proper for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to explain to you the rules of law that you must follow and apply in arriving at your verdict. First, I will give you some general instructions which apply in every case, for example, instructions about burden of proof and how to judge the believability of witnesses. Then I will give you some specific rules of law about this particular case, and finally, I will explain to you the procedures you should follow in your deliberations. 2 ---- You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determin- ing what actually happened--that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts--it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. This Court recognizes that each of you is a reasonable person, capable of making appropriate decisions based simply on your collective common sense and experiences. However, our society is, and must be, ruled by law and not by men. Thus it would violate the very linchpin of our judicial system if you were to render a decision not based on the law as I am now explaining it. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took before being accepted by the parties as jurors, and they have the right to expect nothing less. 3 ---- The indictment or formal charge against the Defendants is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the Defendants are presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a defendant to prove his or her innocence or produce any evidence at all and no inference whatsoever may be drawn from the election of a defendant not to testify. The government has the burden of proving each Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit him or her. Thus, while the government's burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it is not necessary that the Defendant's guilt be proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required that the government's proof exclude any "reasonable doubt" concerning the Defendants' guilt. A "reasonable doubt" is a doubt based on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. If you are convinced that one or more of the accused has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. 4 ---- As I told you earlier, it is your duty to determine the facts. Specifically, you must determine whether the government has proven the allegations of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, you must consider only the evidence presented during the trial, including the sworn testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits. Remember that any statements, objections, or arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence. The function of the lawyers is to point out those things that are most significant or most helpful to their side of the case, and in so doing to call your attention to certain facts or inferences that might otherwise escape your notice. In the final analysis, however, it is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you. Also, do not assume from anything I may have done or said during the trial that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for the instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own findings as to the facts. It is the duty of the Court to admonish an attorney who, out of zeal for his cause, does something which I feel is not in keeping with the rules of evidence or procedure. You are to draw absolutely no inference against the side to whom an admonition of the Court may have been addressed during the trial of this case. 5 ---- While you should consider only the evidence, you are permitted to draw such reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits as you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the evidence. You should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. "Direct evidence" is the testimony of one who asserts actual knowledge of a fact such as an eye witness. "Circumstantial evidence" is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that a defendant is either guilty or not guilty. The law makes no distinction between the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. 6 ---- I remind you that it is your job to decide whether the government has proved the guilt of each Defendant beyond a reason- able doubt. In doing so, you must consider all the evidence. This does not mean, however, that you must accept all of the evidence as true or accurate. You are the sole judges of the credibility or "believability" of each witness and the weight to be given the witness' testimony. An important part of your job will be making judgements about the testimony of the witnesses who testified in this case. You should decide whether you believe what each person had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making that decision I suggest that you ask yourself a few questions: Did the person impress you as honest? Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth? Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? Did the witness have any relationship with either the government or the defense? Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Did the witness seem to have the opportunity and ability to understand the questions clearly and answer them directly? Did the witness' testimony differ from the testimony of other witnesses? These are a few of the considerations that will help you determine the accuracy of what each witness said. In making up your mind and reaching a verdict, do not make any decisions simply because there were more witnesses on one side than on the other. Do not reach a conclusion on a particular point just because there were more witnesses testifying for one side on that point. Your job is to think about the testimony of each witness 7 ---- you have heard and decide how much you believe of what each witness had to say. The testimony of a witness may be discredited by showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter, or by evidence that at some other time the witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, which is inconsistent with the testimony the witness gave at this trial. If you believe that a witness has been discredited in this manner, it is your exclusive right to give the testimony of that witness whatever weight you think at this trial. You will always bear in mind, however, that the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence, and no inference whatsoever may be drawn from the election of eny defendant not to testify. 8 ---- Where a defendant has offered evidence of good general reputation for truth and veracity, or honesty and integrity, or as a law-abiding citizen, you should consider such evidence along with all the other evidence in the case. Evidence of a Defendant's reputation, inconsistent with those traits of character ordinarily involved in the commission of the crime charged, may give rise to a reasonable doubt, since you may think it improbable that a person of good character in respect to those traits would commit such a crime. You will always bear in mind, however, that the law never imposes unon a Defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. 9 ---- You have heard that some of the witnesses who testified were convicted of felony offenses in the past. Convictions are factors you may consider in deciding whether to believe a witness, but they do not necessarily destroy a witness' credibility. They have been brought to your attention only because you may wish to consider them when you decide whether you believe the witness' testimony. 10 ---- The testimony of an alleged accomplice, and the testimony of one who provides evidence as an informer for pay or for immunity from punishment, hope of leniency or for other personal advantage or vindication, must always be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care and caution than the testimony of ordinary witnesses. You, the jury, must decide whether such witness' testimony has been affected by any of those circumstances, or by his or her interest in the outcome of the case, or by prejudice against the Defendant, or by the benefits that he or she has received either financially, or as a result of being immunized from prosecution or hope of leniency. You should never convict a Defendant upon the unsupported testimony of such a witness unless you believe that testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. 11 ---- In this case the government called Kathryn Schroeder, who is an alleged co-conspirator. The government has entered into a plea agreement with her, providing for her agreement to cooperate with and testify truthfully if called as a witness by the government in exchange for the promise of more lenient treatment than she otherwise would have received. Such plea bargaining, as it is called, has been approved as lawful and is expressly provided for in the rules of this court. An alleged co-conspirator, including one who has entered into a plea agreement with the government, is not prohibited from testifying. On the contrary, the testimony of such a witness may alone be of sufficient weight to sustain a verdict of guilty. However, you should keep in mind that such testimony is always to be received with caution and weighed with great care. You should never convict a Defendant upon the unsupported testimony of an alleged con-conspirator unless you believe that testimony beyond a reasonable doubt; and the fact that such witness has entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged is not evidence, in and of itself, to the guilt of any other person. 12 ----