McWane (N.D. Ala.) Court Jury Instructions (4.5.05)

• Author: Judson W. Starr/Amy J. McMaster/John F. Cooney/Joseph G. (Jerry) Block/David G. Dickman
• Pages: 421-452

Page 421

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CR 04-PT-199-S

MCWANE, INC., JAMES DELK, MICHAEL

DEVINE, CHARLES "BARRY" ROBISON,

and DONALD BILLS

Defendants.

ORDER

The attached are draft proposed jury instructions. The parties will bring to the conference

on April 11 written objections, proposed additions and proposed changes.

DONE and ORDERED this the 7th day of April, 2005.

ROBERT B. PROPST

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

FILED

2005 Apr-07 PM 02:09

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:04-cr-00199-CLS-RRA Document 261 Filed 04/07/05 Page 1 of 1

Page 422 Environmental Crimes Deskbook 2nd Edition

1

COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS

Members of the Jury:

It is now my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in

deciding this case. W hen I have finished you will go to the jury room and begin your

discussions–what we call your deliberations.

It will be your duty to decide whether the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt

the specific facts necessary to find a Defendant guilty of a crime charged in the indictment.

You must make your decision only on the basis of the testimony and other evidence presented

here during the trial; and you must not be influenced in any way by either sympathy or prejudice for

or against the Defendant or the Government.

You must follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree with that law or not; and

you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You may not single out, or disregard, any of the

Court’s instructions on the law.

The indictment or formal charge against any Defendant is not evidence of guilt. Indeed,

every Defendant is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a Defend ant to

prove innocence or to produce any evidence at all. The government has the burden of proving a

Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so you must find that Defendant

not guilty.

Thus, while the Government’s burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it is not necessary

that a Defendant’s guilt be proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required that the

Government’s proof exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant’s guilt.

FILED

2005 Apr-07 PM 02:10

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:04-cr-00199-CLS-RRA Document 261-1 Filed 04/07/05 Page 1 of 31

McWane (N.D. Ala.) Court Jury Instructions (4.5.05) Page 423

2

A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based upon 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 a Defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If

you are not convinced, say so.

As I said earlier, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in the case. The

term “evidence” includes the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record.

Remember that anything the lawyers say is not evidence in the case. It is your own recollection and

interpretation of the evidence that controls. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you. Also,

you should not assume from anything I may have said that I have any opinion concerning any of the

issues in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I

may have said during the trial in arriving at your own decision concerning the facts.

In considering the evidence you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason

and common sense lead you to make; and you should not be unduly concerned about whether the

evidence is direct or circumstantial. “Direct evidence” is the testimony of one who asse rts actual

knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of facts

and circumstances tending to prove, or disprove, any fact in dispute. The law makes no distinction

between the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Now, in saying that you must consider all of th evidence, I do not mean that you must accept

all of the evidence as true or accurate. You should decide whether you believe what each witness

had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making those decisions you may believe or

Case 2:04-cr-00199-CLS-RRA Document 261-1 Filed 04/07/05 Page 2 of 31