THE COURT: The inference or conclusion to be
drawn, however, must flow naturally from the proven facts and
be consistent and point only to guilt and must exclude beyond
a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence,
and you must not draw the inference of built, but of
innocence. If two inferences may be drawn, you must draw the
inference most favorable to the defendant. No defendant in a
criminal case is compelled to take the witness stand or to
call witnesses. If he does, however, he becomes a witness
for all purposes, and may be subjected to the same tests
which are applied to all other witnesses.
In this case, the defendant, Omar Spruill, took the
witness stand and test in his own behalf. I charge you that
as a matter of law the defendant, Omar Spruill, is an
interested witness. He is an interested witness because of
some unpleasant or serious consequences for the defendant may
result from the jury's verdict if the verdict is not in his
favor. This, of course, does not mean that you should
disregard the defendant's testimony. The interest of the
defendant is merely one element that you have the right to
consider in evaluating his testimony.
Now, in addition to the law stating that Omar
Spruill is an interested witness in the outcome of the case,
as a matter of law, the law goes further, and says that if
you find that any other witness or witnesses are interested
in the outcome of the case, as a matter of fact, and you are
the sole judges of the facts, then you may weigh the
testimony of that witness in the light of his interest. You
alone have the power to determine whether the defendant or
any witness was truthful or not truthful, and what weight you
should give to his testimony.
The defendant, Julien Peters, did not testify. The
law states that the fact that the defendant did not testify
is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the
defendant may be drawn.
So there it is, there is the case. The case was
rather long. We have had a number of witnesses. You have
had the opportunity to see the witnesses, to hear their
testimony and to determine whether they are telling the truth
or not.
Now, the law also demands that I charge you as
follows: The jury may not in determining the issue of guilt
or innocence consider or speculate concerning matters
relating to sentence or punishment. You should consider only
the evidence you find to be credible. Bear in mind it is not
the number of witnesses on either side, but the weight and
convincing quality of the evidence.
You have had an opportunity to observe all the
witnesses, and if you believe any witness has testified
falsely to any material fact, you are at liberty to disregard
the entire testimony of that witness. You don't have to,
because you may accept that part of the testimony which you
believe, and reject that part which you believe to be false.
Weigh all of the evidence carefully. Apply to the
witnesses those tests you apply in your everyday life. Do
they have any motive for misrepresenting the true version of
the facts? Is there any testimony that is suspicious? Are
they biased or hostile? Is it tainted with falsehood or is
it frank and honest? Because it is for you to say whether or
not from all the circumstances surrounding the alleged
commission of the crime, the prosecution has proved beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
In evaluating a witness' credibility you may
consider whether the testimony is supported or contradicted
by any other evidence. As I have told you, police officers
are not entitled to any more or less credibility merely
because they are police officers. The verdict must be your
individual verdict and you are not to surrender your position
merely because you are in a minority or any other reason than
being convinced by the arguments of your fellow jurors.
I must also charge you that you are not to consider
similar pathology for the victim or his family or for the
defendant. Your verdict must be based solely upon the
credible evidence.
The word "verdict" means "speak the truth." If you
return a verdict that speaks truth, nobody is going to find
fault with you. I don't have any opinion at all as to the
innocence or guilt of the defendants. I don't have any
opinion as to the credibility of any of the witnesses. The
law does not permit me to. You are the sole judges of the
facts. I am the judge insofar as the law. When you return
your verdict, I am not even going to tell you whether I agree
with your verdict or whether I disagree with your verdict. I
am merely going to thank you for the attention you paid to
this Court for returning a verdict.
This completes my final instructions. However, as
to the issue of smoking in the courtroom, in the jury room,
you may not discuss this case until all twelve of you are
together. Therefore, if any of you wish to smoke, and your
smoking will cause discomfort to any of your fellow jurors,
it will be necessary for you to leave the jury room escorted
by a court officer and you may not discuss the case while
outside the jury room. Those remaining may not deliberate
until the smokers have returned to the room.
The Clerk will hand you a verdict sheet as to the
defendants. When you have all agreed upon a verdict, please
mark the verdict sheet and send a note to the Court through
the court officer that you have reached a unanimous verdict.