UNKNOWN: While you're doing the jury instruction, I told 'em not to let anybody in. So it won't interrupt (mumble) you might tell nobody --
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let me make an announcement. While I'm reading the jury instructions, I don't let anybody go in or out of the courtroom until I'm through. It'll probably take fifteen to twenty minutes, maybe less. It'll depend on how well I can read, I guess. So you're forewarned. If you want to leave the courtroom, or have any pressing matters to attend to, now's the time to get up and go do it. And gentlemen, when we start, then I'm not -- I don't want anybody coming in or out. It'll take about twenty minutes, so, you're welcome to stay and listen, but.
(PAUSE)
UNKNOWN: (WHISPERS)
THE COURT: Yeah, I am right now. Uh gentleman, on polling the jury, uh, do you want 'em called individually or uh? I was planning on doing that at large. All right.
All right ladies and gentlemen, the Court has been requested and in fact I think that it's appropriate in view of the length of this trial and the fact that we've had recess periods over the weekend and that there has been a multitude of media attention to this trial to inquire of you if any of you have read the newspaper, watched the tv, or listened to the radio, or through any other source have gained any outside information from those sources or any other about this case. Have you followed the admonition of the Court as best as humanly possible? Particularly with regard to the continuance yesterday, I believe there was an announcement placed on Channel 8 TV advising jurors not to report until this morning. Did any of you learn of any reason why that continuance was necessary? All right. Anything else gentlemen, in that regard? And can you give the Court the assurance that you have lived up to the warning and admonition of the Court and your duty as jurors? In that respect.
All right. I'm about to read to you the instructions of law that you're to apply to the facts that you've heard in this case. After I read the instructions, I'm going to allow you to take your noon recess as we customarily have done. And when you return, the lawyers will then argue their case. Following the arguments, you'll uh -- the alternates will be relieved and you'll be told to retire to the jury room and begin your deliberations. That telephone that we've had back there will come out of the room, so if you need to make any phone calls to your family, office place, or whatever, please do that at the noon break. I don't know how long arguments will take. I suspect three hours or more. Maybe four hours. I'm not gonna put a time limit on the lawyers because we've been here for fifteen or sixteen days and we've spent more time than that on the case. So whatever length it takes, that's what it will take. At the conclusion of that, then you will begin your deliberations. I'll probably keep you here until fairly late tonight, so um, try to be prepared to do that. Of course, you'll be given all the time that you need, ah, if you make a report at a reasonable period of time that you want to go home for the evening and come back and begin tomorrow morning, that'll be permitted. But I'd like to make a reasonable effort to -- for you to consider the case today, we'll talk about that more later.
I'm going to read the instructions at that -- at this time. Unless any of you have any questions? Do you have any questions about the procedures I've outlined? All right.
If I read these, I read these in hundreds of cases and part of it's very familiar to me and sometimes I read too fast or unintelligible. I'll try not to do that. But in the event you do not understand the instruction or, um, you can't understand my describing the instruction, typewritten copies will be provided for you to take to the jury room. And anytime a question arises as to a point of law, it should be covered in these instructions and you're encouraged to take the instructions and review them as a jury as a whole.
(BEGINS READING JURY INSTRUCTIONS)
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 these 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 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.
Although Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols are being tried jointly, you should consider the evidence for or against each of them separately and render your verdicts as if each were being tried separately.
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 the 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 controversy. You may consider his opinion in the light of his qualifications and credibility, the reasons given for his opinions, and the facts and other matters upon which his opinion is based. You are not bound to accept an expert opinion as conclusive, but should give it whatever weight you think it should have. You may disregard any opinion testimony if you find it to be unreasonable.
A fact in dispute may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. A fact is established by direct evidence when, for example, it is proved by witnesses who testified to what they saw, heard or experienced. A fact is established by circumstantial evidence when its existence can reasonably be inferred from other facts proved in the case. However, circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the guilt of the defendant and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion.
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. The filing of an information is merely the means by which a person is brought to trial. It is not evidence, and is not to be considered by you in determining the guilt or innocence of Jason Baldwin or Damien Echols.
There is a presumption of the defendant's innocence in a criminal prosecution. In this case, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols are presumed to be innocent.
(STOPS READING, PAUSE)
DAVIDSON: On 108 also, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, I know. I caught it but I didn't change it.
(PAUSE)
I'm gonna read this one again. There is a presumption of the defendant's innocence in a criminal prosecution. In this case, Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols are presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence attends and protects them throughout the trial and should continue and prevail in your minds unless and until you are convinced of their 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 of the evidence, he has an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.
A defendant has an absolute constitutional right not to testify. The fact that Jason Baldwin did not testify is not evidence of guilt or innocence and under no circumstances shall be considered by you in arriving at your verdict.
Evidence that a witness previously made a statement which is inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, may be considered by you for the purposes of judging the credibility of the witness, but may not be considered by you as evidence of the truth of the matter set forth in that statement.
Evidence that a witness has previously been convicted of a crime may be considered by you for the purposes of judging the credibility of the witness.
In this case, the State does not contend that Damien Echols or Jason Baldwin acted alone in the commission of the offense of three counts of capital murder. A person is criminally responsible for the conduct of another person when he is 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, aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in 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.
Jason Baldwin is charged with three counts of capital murder. This charge includes the lesser offenses of first-degree murder and second-degree murder. 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, 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.
Jason Baldwin is charged with three counts of capital murder. To sustain this charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of any person, Jason Baldwin or an accomplice caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Steve Branch in count two, and Chris Byers in count three.
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of capital murder, you will then consider the charge of first-degree murder. To sustain this charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jason Baldwin or an accomplice, with the purpose of causing the death of another person, caused the death of Michael Moore count one, Steve Branch in count two, and Chris 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 this charge, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that Jason Baldwin or an accomplice knowingly caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Steve -- Stevie Branch in count two, and Chris Byers in count three under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life or, that Jason Baldwin or an accomplice with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to Michael Moore count one, Stevie Branch count two, Chris Byers in count three, did cause the death of Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers.
I've already defined purpose. Uh, I'll define knowingly. 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 respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that it is particularly 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.
Damien Echols is charged with three counts of capital murder. This charge includes the lesser offenses of first-degree murder and second-degree murder. 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, 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.
Damien Echols is charged with three counts of capital murder. To sustain this charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of any person, Damien Echols or an accomplice caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Stevie Branch in count two, and Chris Byers in count three.
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of capital murder, you will then consider the charge of first-degree murder. To sustain this charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Damien Echols or an accomplice, with the purpose of causing the death of another person, caused the death of Michael Moore count one, Stevie Branch in count two, and Chris 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 this charge, the State must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt. One, that Damien Echols or an accomplice knowingly caused the death of Michael Moore in count one, Stevie Branch count two, and Chris Byers in count three under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life or, Damien Echols or an accomplice with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to Michael Moore in count one, Stevie Branch in count two, and Chris Byers in count three, did cause the death of Michael Moore, Stevie Branch and Chris Byers.
Purpose is again defined for ya: 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.
Knowingly. 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 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 Damien Echols acted with a 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 the exercise of reasoning powers. It is not necessary that this state of mind existed for any particular length of time, but it is necessary that it was formed before the homicide act was committed. It is the existence of this state of mind which distinguishes capital murder from first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
In order to find that Jason Baldwin acted with a 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 a weighing in the mind of the consequences of a course of conduct as distinguished from acting upon sudden impulse, without the exercise of reasoning powers. It is not necessary that this state of mind existed for any particular length of time, but it is necessary that it was formed before the homicide act was committed. It is the existence of this state of mind which distinguishes capital murder from first-degree murder and second-degree murder.
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.
All right, gentlemen, I'm gonna recess the jury to uh, til...12:30? 12:30 give you plenty of time to eat? My alternates will have to come back, too, you'll have to hear the arguments and all of that. So with the -- I hesitate to say with the usual admonition, because it's even more significant at this point that you not be influenced whatsoever from any outside source. So I'm going to emphasize and say you are reminded of the admonition of the Court not to discuss this case among yourselves or to allow anyone to discuss the case with you or watch, listen to, or read any media account of this trial. And you're free to go until 12:30.
