In Session Judge Burmila is on the bench. “Good morning, everyone . . . this is a jury instruction conference. Then the State has filed a motion in limine, which we’ll discuss after the instruction conference is over.”
In Session Attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the Court regarding the first proposed instruction. The defense wants extra language in a standard instruction telling jurors not to let sympathy or prejudice influence their deliberations. Prosecutor Koch argues against the modified language. Brodsky: “The jury should be aware that [punishment] is not for them to worry about.” Judge: “The version submitted by the State is a correct statement of the law. The defendant’s modified [version] is denied.”
In Session The next instruction concerns outside sources of information. Once again, the defense offers a modified version, says the instruction as written is actually appropriate for a pre-trial instruction, not post-trial. The judge seems inclined not to re-read the instruction to the jury, but to submit it along with the written instructions. Brodsky: “We’ve had multiple people who have been sitting behind the State’s table, and actually instructed in and out of the courtroom by Chuck Pelkie, who after court addressed favorably the way the State’s case was going, and addressed in a negative fashion the way the case was going for the defense . . .they’re also on occasion criticizing the Court’s rulings. I don’t know what Mr. Pelkie is telling them . . . I just think that given the potential of some connection, reading this instruction to instruct the jury once again that they’re not to consider anything that may have filtered by to them through the press is beneficial to ensuring that Mr. Peterson gets a fair trial.”
In Session Prosecutor Koch responds, calls this defense complaint “purely speculative . . . I don’t see the purpose in reading this again at the end of the case.” Attorney Greenberg: “Why not give it, just in an overabundance of caution? There’s no harm.” Judge: “First of all, in regards to the allegations about communications with the press, I don’t know that what you’ve related to me today is something I can take into account . . . if what you’re saying is accurate, and the State’s Attorney’s office is using an agent to make derogatory comments about the Court, that’s something they’re going to have to answer to in a different setting. The case law in Illinois is completely clear that these instructions should not be modified, unless there’s a significant reason to modify them . . . we did give the instruction before the trial started . . . over the defendant’s objection, the instruction will not be modified, and it will be given to the jury in writing.”
In Session The next instruction involves the believability of witnesses. Brodsky has no objection to this instruction, and the instruction will be given as prepared.