RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing
to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.
3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.
4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not, in accord with the law.
6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous, that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
7. It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.
8. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias or sympathy.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in thes instructions.
.
.
.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.
Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
let's apply this test to the testimony and evidence:
State asserts that someday in mid-June of 2008, Casey Anthony intentionally chloroformed her daughter and duct taped her mouth and nose to kill her.
Stop there for a second...because if this assertion cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt there is no need for the jury to deliberate further.
What is the proof that she chloroformed her daughter? there was scientific testimony both to the presence and lack of presence of cholorform. There was testimony to 84 searches, and only 1 search. conflict in the evidence = reasonable doubt according to the jury instructions.
What is the proof that Caylee's mouth and nose were duct-taped pre-mortem and that this caused or contributed to her death? none, aside from the statement that "there is no reason to duct tape a child's mouth and nose alive or dead". Is this evidence though? read above: lack of evidence = reasonable doubt per jury instruction.
Even if a juror were to get by that one, what is the proof that Casey duct taped Caylee's mouth and nose and someone else did not? none.
There is really no need for the jury to beyond this. If you cannot overcome "the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime." as a juror...that's it - not guilty.
I think these jurors approached their job responsibly and professionally, without emotion or consideration of anything not presented in evidence or testified to.
If they could not get past the hurdle I mentioned, there is no need to review testimony, or look at evidence - what's the point?