11/04/2010 THU 16:16 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV SURY CHARGE - STATE v, HAYES - NOVEMBER 4, 2010 I Introduction, Ladies and gentlemen, you have found the defendant, Steven Hayes, guilty of six counts of the crime of capital felony. You must now decide whether he lives or whether he dies, This simple statement is enough to suggest the solemnity of the occasion which brings us together. ‘You have heard the evidence presented in both the guilt-innocence phase and the penalty phase of this case. It is now my duty to charge you on the law that you must now apply to the facts that you find from that evidence. Several of my initial instructions will be familiar to you, as they set forth general principles of law that were explained in the charge that I delivered at the end of the guilt-innocence phase of the trial. After reminding you of these general principles, I will go on to charge you on the specific principles of law applicable to the penalty phase of the case, Il. Functions of the Judge and Jury. ‘Youas the jury and I as the judge have separate functions. It is your function to find what ‘the facts are in this case. With respect to the facts, you and you alone are charged with that responsibility. My function is to charge you on the law to be applied to the facts that you find in order to decide this case. With respect to the law, what I say to you is binding on you, and you ‘must follow all of my instructions. ‘The parties are entitled to have this case decided pursuant to established legal standards that are the same for everyone. Those are the standards that I will give to you and that you must, follow. If what coimsel has said about the law differs from what I tell you, you must ignore counsel’s interpretation of the law. You must decide this ease based only on the law that I give to Moor __ |11/04/2010 THU 16:16 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV you. I do not believe thet there will be any inconsistency between the law contained in this charge and anything Imay have told you about the law at an earlier stage of the proceeding, but if there {s, itis the law contained in this charge that is to control. T do not have any preference as to the outcome of this case, My task is to apply the rules of evidence and to charge you on the law. It is for you alone to decide the case. ‘You are the sole judges of the facts. It is your duty to find the facts. You are to recollect and weigh the evidence and form your own conclusions as to what the facts are. You may not go outside the evidence presented in courtto find the facts. You may not resort to guesswork, conjecture, suspicion, or speculation, and you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, prejudices, or mere sympathy. You must carefully consider all of the evidence presented and the claims of each party. Both pasties rightly expect that you will consider all of the evidence and treat their claims fairly and justly. TIL. Evidence. ‘The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of the sworn ‘testimony of witnesses, the exhibits that have been received into evidence as fall exhibits, and the stipulations of the parties, The testimonial evidence includes both what was said on direct examination and what was said on cross examination, without regard to which party called the witness, In reaching your verdict, you should consider all of the testimony, full exhibits, and stipulations presented to you both during the guilt phase and the penalty phase of the tral. There are a number of things that may have been seen or heard during the trial that are not os11/04/2010 THU 16:16 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ova evidence and that you may not consider in deciding what the facts are, These include: (1) Arguments and statements by the lawyers during the trial and voir dire are not evidence, The lawyers are not witnesses. Their arguments are intended to help you interpret the evidence, but they are not evidence. If the facts as you remember them differ in any way from the i lawyers" statements, it is your memory that controls. (2) The questions asked by the lawyers are not evidence. A question is not evidence, It is the answer, not the question or the assumption made in the question that is the evidence. (3) Testimony that has been excluded or stricken is not evidence. (4) Testimony ot exhibits that I have told you are to be used only for a limited purpose are not evidence for any other purpose. Any other use of that evidence would be improper. | (5) The document called the “Information” that you had with you in the jury room during . yout deliberations on the guilt phase is not evidence. The Information is merely the formal method of accusing a person of a crime in order to bring him to trial. You must not consider the Information as evidence in the case. (© The documents entitled “Notice of Ageravating Factors” and “Defendant’s Proposed Statutory Mitigating Factors” (which document also contains the “Defendant's Proposed Non- Statutory Mitigating Factors”) are not evidence. ‘You may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is evidence involving inferences reasonably and logically drawn from proven facts. Let me give you | an example of what I mean by direct and circumstantial evidence. If you wake up in the morning | and see water on the sidewalk, that is direct evidence that there is water on the sidewalk. It is also11/04/2010 THU 16:18 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV Boos circumstantial evidence that it rained during the night. Of course other evidence, such as a tumed-on garden hose, may explain the water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before you find thet a {fact has been proven by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience, and common sense, In deciding this case, you may consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but itis for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence, IY. Use of Notes. The notes you have taken are simply aids to your individual memory. ‘When you deliberate, you should rely on your independent recollection of the evidence ‘you have seen and heard during the trial. You should not give precedence to your own notes or to any other juror’s notes over your independent recollection of the evidence because, as we all ‘know, notes are not necessarily accurate or complete, Jurors who havé not taken notes should rely on their own recollection of the evidence and should not be influenced in any way by the fact that other jurors have taken notes. Your deliberations should be determined not by what is or is not in your notes but by your independent recollection of the evidence. If you have a question about any particular testimony, you may ask that it be read back to you from the official record, so there is no need to rely upon notes. V. Credibility of Witnesses, The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony are matters for you to determine, However, there are some principles you should keep in mind. ‘You may believe all, none, or any part of any witness's testimony. In making that11/04/2010 THU 18:17 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ove determination, you may wish to cousider the following factors: (1) Was the witness able to see, | hear, or know the things about which that wimess testified? (2) How well was the witness able to | recall and describe those things? (3) What was the witness's manner while testifying? (4) Did the ‘witness have an interest in the outcome of the case or any bias or prejudice conceming any party or any matter involved in the case? (5) How reasonable was the witness's testimony considered in light of all of the evidence in the case? (6) Was the witness’s testimony contradicted by what that witness has said or done at another time or by the testimony of other witnesses or by other evidence? If you find that a witness has deliberately testified falsely in some respect, you should carefully consider whether you should rely on any of that witness’s testimony. In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people sometimes forget things. You should consider whether a contradiction is an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falschood. That may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or only a small detail The weight of evidence does not depend on the number of witnesses testifying on one side or the other. You must consider all of the evidence in the case. Yourmay decide that the testimony of a smaller number of witnesses on one side has greater weight than that of a larger number on the other side. Itis the quality and not the quantity of evidence that controls. All of these are factors that you may consider in finding the facts. VI. Testimony of Police Officers and other Offictals, ‘You must determine the credibility of police officers and other officials in the same way and by the same standards that you would use to evaluate the testimony of ordinary witnesses.11/04/2010 THU 18:17 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV oor The testimony of a police officer or other official is entitled to no special or exclusive weight merely because it comes from an official. You should recall the witness’s demeanor on the stand and manner of testifying and weigh and balance the testimony of an official just as carefully as you would the testimony of any other witness. You should neither believe nor disbelieve the testimony of a police officer or other ness is an official. official just because the ‘Vil. Expert Witnesses. An expert witnesses is a witness who has specialized training ot experience in a particular field. Most witnesses can testify only to facts that they have personally seen or heard and are not allowed to state opinions. Because of their specialized training or experience, expert witnesses are allowed not only to testify concerning facts but to state opinions on issues within their field of expertise. A witness’s specialized training or experience does not put that witness on a higher level than any other witness, and you are to treat expert witnesses just as you would treat any other witness, It is entirely up to you to decide whether you accept the testimony of an expert witness, including the opinions that the witness stated. It is also entirely up to you to decide whether you accept the facts relied upon by the expert and to decide what conclusions, if any, you draw from the expert’s testimony. You are free to accept or reject the testimony or opinion of an expert witness, in whole or in part. You should consider whether the witness's opinion was based on sufficient education and experience and whether the witness’s testimony was motivated by any bias or interest in the case. You must also keep firmly in mind that you alone decide what the facts are, If you conclude that an expert’s opinion is not based on the facts, as you find them to11/04/2010 THU 16:17 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV @oos be, you may reject that opinion in whole or in part. ‘You must also remember that expert witnesses do not decide cases. Juries decide cases. An expert witness is like any other witness in the sense that you alone make the judgment about how much credibility and weight you give to the expert’s testimony and what conclusions you draw from that testimony, ‘VII. Defendant's Failure to Testify. ‘The defendant has not testified in this case. An accused person has the option to either testify or not testify at the trial, He is under no obligation to testify. He has a constitutional right | not to testify. You must draw no unfavorable inferences from the defendant's failure to testify. IX, Burdens of Proof, Each party potentially has a burden of proof in this phase of the case, The State has the ‘burden of proving the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has the burden of proving the existence of both statutory and nonstalutory mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. I will fist explain these different standards of proof and then | explain the actual factors that the parties have the burden of proving. X. Standards of Proof. The State must prove the existence of aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, ‘Some of you may be aware that in civil cases jurors are told that it's only riecessary to prove that, a fact is more likely truc than not true. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that, It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the existence of the aggravating factor. There are very few things in the world that we know with11/04/2010 THU 16:18 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV absolute certainty, and in criminal cases, the aw does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the aggravating factor exists, you must find that it exists If, on the other hand, based on the evidence or lack of evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the aggravating factor, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and find that the aggravating factor does not exist. Whether the State sustains its burden of proof does not depend on the number of witnesses or the quantity of testimony but on the nature and quality of the testimony. One witness's testimony is sulficient to support the finding that an aggravating factor exists i establishes all of the required facts of that aggravating factor. The defendant must prove the existence of mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a different, and lesser, standard of proof than the standard of proof imposed on the State. The defendant’s burden of proving mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence means that the better or weightier evidence must establish that, more probably than not, the mitigating factor exists. In weighing the evidence, once again keep in rind that itis the quality and not the quantity of evidence that is important. One piece of believable evidence may weigh so heavily in your mind as to overcome a multitude of less credible evidence. The weight to be accorded each piece of evidence is for you to decide, ‘As an example of what 1 mean by a preponderance of the evidence, imagine in your mind the scales of justice. Put all the credible evidence on the scales regardless of which party offered it, separating the evidence favoring each side. Ifthe scales remain even, or if they tip against the defendant on the issue of whether a particular mitigating factor exists, then the defendant has 8 fooe11/04/2010 THU 16:18 FAX 203 887 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV failed to establish the existence of that factor. Only if the scales incline, even slightly, in favor of the existence of a mitigating factor may you find the existence of the mitigating factor has been proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence. XI. Irrelevance of Certain Considerations, Your verdict should not be swayed or influenced in any way by mere sympathy for or prejudice for or against the State, the defendant, the victims, or anyone else. Your responsibility is to deliver a verdict based upon the law and the evidence without regard to mere sympathy or prejudice. You should not consider the economic cost of any verdict you deliver. You should not be influenced by the views of any other people conceming either the death penally in general or the appropriate verdict in this particular case, The verdict is for you and you alone to decide, XIL. Overview of the Jury’s Task. With these general principles in mind, let me turn to your task in this phase of the case. ‘The defendant has been convicted of six counts of capital felony, as charged in the Fourth, Fifth, ‘Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Counts of the Information, You must consider each ‘count separately and determine the appropriate sentence for the conviction on thal count. Your specific task is to determine under the appropriate legal standards, which I will state for you, whether certain factors have or have not been proven with respect to each of these counts and then to inform the couxt of your findings by completing a written special verdict form. The form, ‘which I will review later in my charge, will serve as an outline to guide you during the process of your deliberation. ‘Your findings, recorded on the special verdict form, will determine the sentence to be imposed with respect to each of the six counts of capital felony. t is your decision and your 9 foro11/04/2010 THU 16:18 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV fou decision alone, based upon your factual findings and your application of the law, that wall determine, with respect to each count, which of only two possible punishments - death by lethal injection or life imprisonment without the possibility of release - will be imposed upon Steven Hayes. Although the court will impose the formal sentence, the sentence that it imposes will be entirely determined by your findings. A sentence of death means exactly what it says. Under our law, the method of inflicting ‘the punishment of death is by lethal injection, A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release means exactly what it says. Under our Jaw, a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release is imprisonment for the remainder of the defendant's natural life. This sentence is unique to the crime of capital felony and is the most severe sentence of imprisomment that can be given under our lew. Your responsibility is the most awesome that can be placed on a jury in our legal system. Although, as you will see in a moment, the law is complicated, your task is in no way mechanical or clerical. You, and you alone, must decide whether Steven Hayes, a fellow human being, is to live or die. This decision should reflect a reasoned moral judgment by cach of you based on a full consideration of Mr. Hayes’ character, background, and history, the nature and circumstances of the crime, and all the facts and circumstances of the case, XILL Overview of the Special Verdict Form. Your findings will be delivered in a written special verdict form. I will go over the details of that form in a few minutes, It will be helpful if I begin by describing the various categories of findings that you must make. 1011/04/2010 THU 16:18 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV oz With respect to each count of capital felony on which Steven Hayes has been convicted - namely, the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Fourteenth Counts - you must, potentially make findings in response to the following questions: 1, Has the defendant proven the existence of a “statutory mitigating factor” by a preponderance of the evidence? 2, Has the State proven the existence of one or more “aggravating factors” beyond a reasonable doubt? 3. Do one or more members of the jury find that the existence of one or more “non statutory mitigating factors” has been proven by the defendant or has been otherwise established by a fair preponderance of the evidence? 4, Ifthe jury finds the existence of one or more “aggravating factors” and one or more members of the jury find one or more “non-statutory mitigating factors,” do the “aggravating factors” outweigh the “nonstatutory mitigating factors” found by those jurors? I will now review these questions in detail, XIV. Statutory Mitigating Factors, ‘You must first determine, with respect to each count, whether the defendant has proven, by apreponderance of the evidence, the existence of what we call a “statutory mitigating fector.” “Statutory mitigating factors” are so called because we have a statute providing that, ifa factor of this description is found to exist, the death penalty cannot be imposed under any ciroumstances, ‘This legal term is distinct from a different legal term - “nonstatutory mitigating factor” - that I will explain to you Jater in the charge. ‘The defendant proposes the existence of three different statutory mitigating factors. u11/04/2010 THU 16:19 FAX 203 887 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV : ors ‘You need not be unanimous as to which statutory mitigating factor exists. You need only bbe unanimous as to a finding that at least one statutory factor exists. Thus, for exumple, if four jurors found the existence of the first proposed statutory mitigating factor, four other jurors found the existence of the second proposed statutory mitigating fuctor, and yet another four jurors found the existence of the third proposed mitigating factor, you would be unanimous that at least one statutory mitigating factor exists. “The defendant proposes that: “1, Steven Hayes’ mental capacity was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. C.G.S, § 53a-46a(h)(3). «2, Steven Hayes? ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. C.G.S, § S3e- 462(h)G). «3, With respect to the Fifth, Bleventh, and Twelfth Counts, Steven Hayes could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which the defendant was convicted would cause or would create a grave riskof causing death to another person, C.G.S. § 53a-46a(h)(5).” Section 53a-46a(h) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides in relevant part, that “The court shall not impose the sentence of death on the defendant if the jury finds by a special verdict that at the time of the offense 3) the defendant’s mental capacity was significantly impaired or the defendant's ability to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law ‘was significantly impaired but not so impaired in either case as to constitute a defense to prosecution ... or (5) the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that the defendant's 1211/04/2010 THU 16:19 FAX 203 967 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ous conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which the defendant was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person.” ‘This statutory language describes threc different statutory mitigating factors. One statutory mitigating factor is that the defendant's mental capacity was significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. The second statutory mitigating factor is that the defendant’s ability to conform his conduct fo the requirements of law was significantly | impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. The third statutory mitigating factor is that the defendant could not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which he was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person. The death penalty is precluded on a particular count if you unanimously find that the defendant has proven the existence of a statutory mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence as to that count, You need not be unanimous as to which statutory mitigating factor has been proven. The term “mentel capacity” means the defendant's ability, at the time of the offense, to understand the wrongful nature and the consequences of his conduct, The term “impaired” means diminished or damaged. The term “significantly” should be given its ordinary meaning, Even if you found, in the guilt-innocence phase, that the defendant did not have a mcntal capacity so impaired as to defeat the State’s proof of specific intent, such a finding does not preclude a finding that the alleged statutory mitigating factor has been proven. You must now determine whether the defendant has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his mental | capacity was significantly impaired, even though that capacity was not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution, Whether the defendant's capacity was significantly impaired 1311/04/2010 THU 1 9 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV in this manner is a question of fact for you to determine from the evidence in the case, ‘The second proposed statutory mitigating factor is that the defendant's ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law wes significantly impaired but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution. Even if you found, in the guilt-innocence phase, that the defendant's ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was not so impaired ast defeat the State's proof of specific intent, such a finding docs not preclude a finding that the alleged statutory mitigating factor has been proven, You must now determine whether the ” dofendant has proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his ability to conform his conduct to-the requirements of law was significantly impaired, even though that ability was nat so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution, Whether the defendant's sbility was significantly impaired in this manner is a question of fact for you to determine from the evidence in this case. ‘The third proposed mitigating factor is that tlie defendant could not reasonably have forescen that his conduct in the course of commission of the offense of which he was convicted would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing, death to another person. Whether the defendant covld not reasonably have foreseen that his conduct would cause, or would create a grave risk of causing death to another person is a question of fact for you to determine from the evidence in the case. A “grave tisk” means not a mere possibility but a high probability. The prave risk must be not just of physical injury but of death to another person. ‘Your findings - existence or nonexistence of proposed statutory mitigating factors. With respect (o cach count of capital felony, you must unanimously find whether the defendant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of a proposed statutory 14 ors11/04/2010 THU 18:20 FAX 203 8€7 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ors mitigating factor with respect to that count. With respect to each count, if you unanimously find that the defendant has proven the existence of a statutory mitigating factor with respect to that count, you shall record that finding in the special verdict form, and your deliberations with respect to that count shall cease. In that event, the Court will sentence the defendant to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on that count, {fyou unanimously find that the defendant has proven the existence of a statutory mitigating factor with respect to each count, you shall record that finding in the special verdict form, and inform the court that you have a verdict, You will then deliver your verdict in open court. Ifyou unanimously find thet the defendant has not proven the existence of a statutory mitigating factor with respect to one or more counts, you shall continue your deliberations only with respect to those counts. XY. Aggravating Factors, Ifyou unanimously find that the defendant has not proven the existence of a statutory mitigating factor, by a preponderance of the evidence, with respect to a particular count, you ‘must next determine whether the State has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of ‘an “aggravating factor” with respect to that count, Depending on the coun, the State proposes the existence of either two or three specific aggravating, factors with respect to each cout of capital felony of which the defendant has been convicted. The State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of any ‘aggravating factor that it claims. Your determination of the existence or non-existence of any 1511/04/2010 THU 16:20 FAX 203 867 6240 ‘NH CRIMINAL DIV a 017 aggravating factor must be based exclusively onthe evidence presented in this case and my tostructions on the Jaw. Ifyou bold any personal belief or opinion as to what does or should constitute an aggravating factor, you must put that belief or opinion aside and follow my ‘instructions. ‘You most presume that no aggravating factor of any description exists unless and nil you unsnimously find, based on all of the evidence, thatthe State has proved the existence of one cor more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that the defendant hes been convicted of the erime of capital felony is not evidence of the existence of aggravating factor. Because the State alleges the existence of multiple aggravating factors with respect to each count, your decision as to the existence or nonexistence of each alleged aggravating factor with respect to each count must be unanimous. {will now review the aggravating factors alleged with respect to each conviction of capital felony. Fourth Count, “The Fourth Count, on which you have retuned a verdict of gully, alleges that “Steven Hayes, with the intent to cause the deaths of two or more persons (10 wi jennifer Hawke-Petit, Hayley Petit, and Michaela Petit), did eause the deaths of such persons in the course of a single sransaction, in violation of Section 53a-540(7) of the Connectient General Statutes.” Section 58a 540(7) of the Conneticut General Statutes provides that, “person is guilty of 2 capital felony who is convicted of murder of two or more persons atthe saune time or inthe course of @ single transaction.” “The State proposes the existance of two different agaravating factors with eapect fo the 1614/04/2010 THU 18:20 FAX 203 887 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV Bois Fourth Count, First proposed aggravating factor. The first aggravating factor proposed by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of a felony and he had previously been convicted on seven occasions of the same felony, to wit burglary in the third degree (Section 53a-103(a) C.G.S.), which is an aggravating factor. Section 53a-46a(i)(1).” Section 53a-46a(i)(1) provides that an aggravating factor exists if, “The defendant ‘committed the offense during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of, a felony and the defendant had previously been convicted of the same felony.” ‘The State proposes that an aggravating factor exists because the defendant committed the offense described in the Fourth Count during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of, the felony of burglary in the third degree and the defendant had previously been convicted of the same felony. Section $3a-103(a) of the Connecticut General statutes provides that, “A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein.” Burgiary in the third degree is a felony. T previously instructed you on elements of the rime of burglary in the third degree in my charge to you on the Fifteenth Count of the Information in the guilt phase of this case. The Fifteenth Count accused Steven Hayes of burglary in the third degree. You returned a verdict of “guilty” on the Fifleenth Count in your verdict at the end of the guilt phase. As I instructed you at that time, in order to prove that the defendant committed the crime of burglary in the third Ww11/04/2010 THU 16:20 FAX 203 867 6240 NM CRIMINAL DIV ors degree, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant knowingly and unlawfully entered or remained in the premises, and (2) that the defendant unlawfully entered or remained in the building with the intent to commit a crime in the building, ‘These are the elements of the crime of burglary in the third degree. By finding the defendant guilty as charged on that Count, you necessarily have found that the State has proven ‘each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. You must now determine whether State has proven each of two other components of the first alleged aggravating factor beyond a ressonable doubt. ‘The State must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the capital felony charged in Count Four of the Information wes committed by the defendant during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of, the felony of burglary in the third degree. ‘The State must additionally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had previously been convicted of the felony of burglary in the third degree. Any conviction must have been imposed prior to the commission of the offense charged here. The aggravating factor described in the statute requires proof of only one prior conviction of this description, and a finding to that effect is all you need to report in the verdict form as Jong as you are unanimous as to which prior conviction, if any, has been proven. Second proposed aggravating factor. “The second aggravating factor proposed by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved mamner. Section 53a-46a@)(4).” Section 53a-46a(i)(4) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that an aggravating 1811/04/2010 THU 16:21 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ozo factor exists if, “the defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.” In order to prove the existence of this proposed aggravating factor, the State must prove each of the following components beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘The first component that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the conduct in question occurred during the commission of the offense charged in Count Four. The commission of the offense includes events immediately connected with the offense, including the immediate flight therefrom, The second component that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the offense was committed “in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner.” This phrase has a specific meaning in our law that is much narrower than the common definition of these terms. This aggravating factor does not apply to all murders or even all multiple murders. The State ust prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct that inflicted extreme physical or psychological pain, suffering, or torture on a victim above and eyond that necessarily accompanying the underlying killing and either (a) that the defendant specifically intended to inflict such extreme pain, suffering, or torture or (b) that the defendant ‘was callous or indifferent to the extreme physical or psychological pain, suffering or torture that his intentional conduct in fact inflicted on a victim. The State must prove that the mental state I hhave just described - that is, either a specific intent to inflict extreme pain, suffering, or torture or that the defendant was callous or indifferent to the extreme physical or psychological pain, suffering or torture that his intentional conduct in fact inflicted on a victim ~ existed at the time of the offense. 1914/04/2010 THU 1 1 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV @o21 ‘The State need only prove that the defendant killed one of the victims in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner, as [have defined that tern, in order to prove that this aggravating factor exists with respect to the conviction on the Fourth Count, If, however, you determine that the defendant killed only one victim in an especially heinous, crucl, or depraved ‘manner, you must be unanimous in your agreement as to which of the victims the defendant killed in that manner. Fifth Count. ‘The Fifth Count, on which you have retumed a verdict of guilty, alleges that, “Steven Hayes, with intent to cause the death of a person (to wit: Michaela Petit), did cause her death and she was under sixteen years of age, in violation of section 53-54b(8) of the Connecticut General Statutes.” Section 53a-54b(8) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that “A person is guilty of capital felony who is convicted of murder of a person under sixteen years of age.” ‘The State proposes the existence of three different aggravating factors with respect to the Fifth Count, First proposed aggravating factor. The first aggravating factor proposed by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission, or during the immediate flight from the commission of, a felony and he had previously been convicted on seven occasions of the same felony, to wit: burglary in the third degree (Section 53a-103(a) C.G.S.), which is an aggravating factor. Section 532- 46a(i)(1)." Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the 2011/04/2010 THU 16:21 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV first alleged aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count, and I need not repeat that discussion, Keep in mind, however, that, with respect to the Fifth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence ofthis alleged factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Michaela Petit, Second proposed aggravating factor. ‘The second proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense and in such commission knowingly eteated a grave risk of death to another person. Section 532~ 46a(i)(3).”" Section 53a-46a(i)(3) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that it is an aggravating factor that “the defendant committed the offense and in such commission knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person in addition to the vietim of the offense.” To prove this proposed ageravating factor, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense of murdering Michaela Petit and that during the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to a person other than Michacla Petit, We have a statute which provides that, “A person acts “knowingly” swith respect to conduct or to a circumstance when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature of that such circumstance exists.” ‘A “grave risk” means not a mere possibility but a high probability. The grave risk must be not just of physical injury but of death. Under the circumstances ofthis case, the grave risk of death must be to a person, other than Michaela Petit, who was still alive and in the bouse at the time of the murderous act. Any risk to persons in the house already deceased, to William Petit, or to police and firefighting personnel not yet in the house at the time of the murderous act is not an au foze11/04/2010 THU 18:22 FAX 203 887 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ozs aggravating circumstance under the statute, Third proposed aggravating factor. ‘The third aggravating factor proposed by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner, Section 53a-46a(i)(4).” Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count, and I need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Fifth Count, the State must prove this proposed aggravating factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Michaela Petit, Tenth Count. “The Tenth Count, on which you have returned a verdict of “puilty,” alleges that “Steven Hayes, with intont to cause the death of a person who he kidnapped (to wit: Jennifer Hawke- Petit), did cause her death during the course of the kidnapping, in violation of Section 53a-54b(5) of the Connecticut General Statutes.” Section $3a-54b(5) of the Connecticut General Statute provides that, “A person is guilty of capital felony who is convicted of murder by a kidnapper of a kidnapped person during the course of the kidnapping,” ‘The State proposes the existence of two aggravating factors with respect to the Tenth Count. First proposed aggravating factor. ‘The first aggravating factor alleged by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission of, or during thie inumediate flight from the commission of, a felony and he had previously been convicted on seven occasions of the same felony, (o wit: 2211/04/2010 THU 18:22 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV ona burglary in the third degree (Section 53a-103(a) C.G.S.), which is an aggravating factor. Section 53a-46a(i)(1).” Ihave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the first proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count of the Information, and I need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however, that, with respect to the Tenth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this proposed factor specifically as itrelates to the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, Second proposed aggravating factor, ‘The second aggravating factor proposed by the State is that, “The defendant committed ‘the offense in an especially heinous, ctuel or depraved manner. Section 53a-46a(i)(4).” | Ihave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second alleged aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count, and I need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Tenth Count, the State must prove this proposed aggravating factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit. Eleventh Count. The Eleventh Count, on which you have returned a verdict of guilty, alleges that, “Steven | Hayes, with the intent to cause the death of a person who he kidnapped (to wit: Hayley Petit), did cause her death during the course of the kidnapping, in violation of Section 53a-546(5) of the | Connecticut General Statutes.” Section 53a-54b(S) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that, “A person is guilty of a capital felony who is convicted of murder by a'kidnapper of a kidnapped person during the course of the kidnapping.” 2B11/04/2010 THU 18:22 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV “The State proposes the existence of three aggravating factors with respect to the Bleverth Count. First proposed aggravating factor. ‘The fist proposed aggravating factor is thai, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of felony and he had previously been convicted on seven occasions of the same felony, to wit: burglary in the third degree (Section 538-103(2) C.G.S.) Which is am aggravating factor, Section 53a-46a()(1).” Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the first proposed aggravating factor with respectto the Fourth Count of the Information, and I need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Bleventh Court, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this aggravating factor specifically ‘as it relates to the murder of Hayley Petit, Second proposed aggravating factor. ‘The second proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense and jn such commission knowingly created a'grave risk of death to another person. Section 53a- A6a(i)(3).” Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the sovond proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fifth Count of the Information, and Teed not repeat that instruction. Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Bleventh Count, the Stato must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this alleged factor specifically as it selates to the murder of Hayley Petit. ‘Third proposed aggravating factor, 24. ozs11/04/2010 THU 1 2 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV oze “The third proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. Section 53a-46a(i)(3).” Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count of the Information, and I need not repeat that instruction, Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Eleventh Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doit the existence of this alleged factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Hayley Petit. ‘Twelfth Count. ‘The Twelfth Count, on which you have retiimed a verdict of guilty, alleges that, “Steven Hayes, with the intent to cause the death of a person who he kidnapped (to wit: Michaela Petit), did cause her death during the course of the Kidnapping, in violation of Section 532-54b(5) of the Connecticut General Statutes.” Section $3a-54b(S) of the Connecticut General Statutes provides that, “A person is guilty ofa capital felony who is convicted of murder by a kidnapper of a kidnapped person during the course of the kidnapping,” “The State proposes the existence of tlitee aggravating factors with respect to the Twelfth Count, First proposed aggravating factor, The first proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of a felony and he had previously been convicted on seven occasions of the same felony, to wit; burglary in the third degree (Section 53a-103(a) C.G.S.) Which is an aggravating factor. Section $3a-46a(i)(1).” 2811/04/2010 THU 16:29 FAX 209 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV oor Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the first proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count of the Information, and [need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however; that with respect to the Twelfth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this aggravating factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Michaela Petit. Second proposed aggravating factor. ‘The second proposed aggravating factor is that, “Phe defendant committed the offense | and in such commission knowingly created a'gtave risk of death to another person. Section 53a- | 46a(i)(3).” Thave previously instructed you on this:proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second proposed aggravating factor with respect to-the Fifth Count of the Information, and I need not repeat that instruction, Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Twelfth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this alleged factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Michaela Petit. ‘Third proposed aggravating factor. ‘The third proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense in an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner, Section 53a-46a(i)(3)." Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second proposed aggravating factor with respéct to:the Fourth Count of the Information, and I | need not repeat that instruction. Keep in mind, however, that with respect to the Twelfth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable dotibt the existence of tis alleged factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Michaela Petit. 2611/04/2010 THU 16:23 FAX 203 867 6240 NH_ CRIMINAL DIV Go2s Fourteenth Count. ‘The Fourteenth Count, on which you have retumed a verdict of guilty, alleges that, “Steven Hayes, with the intent {o cause the death of'a person (to wit: Jennifer Hawke-Petit), did cause her death in the course of the commission of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of Section 53a-4b(6) of the Connecticut General Statutes.” Section 53a-54b(6) of the Connecticut‘General Statutes provides that, “A person is guilty of a capital felony who is convicted of murder cominitted in the course of the commission of sexual assault in the first degree.” The State proposes the existence of two aggravating factors for the Fourteenth Count, First proposed aggravating factor. The first ageravating factor alleged by the State is that, “The defendant committed the offense during the commission of, or during the immediate flight from the commission of, a felony and he bad previously been convicted:on'seven occasions of the same felony, to wit: burglary in the third degree (Section 53a-103(a) C.G.S.), which is an aggravating factor. Section 53a-460(i)(1).” have previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the first proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count of the Information, and 1 need not repeat that discussion. Keep in mind, however, that, with respect to the Fourteenth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this proposed factor specifically as. it relates to the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit: Second proposed aggravating factor. ‘The second proposed aggravating factor is that, “The defendant committed the offense in 2711/04/2010 THU 16:23 FAX 203 667 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV fao20 an especially heinous, cruel or depraved manner. Section 53a-46a(i)(3).” Thave previously instructed you on this proposed aggravating factor in my charge on the second proposed aggravating factor with respect to the Fourth Count of the Information, and ‘necd not repeat that instruction. Keep in ‘mind, however, that with respect to the Fourteenth Count, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of this alleged factor specifically as it relates to the murder of Jennifer Hawke-Petit. Your findings - existence or nonexistence of proposed aggravating functors, ‘With respect to each count of capital felony, you must ‘unanimously find whether the ‘State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of one or more of the aggravating factors proposed to exist with respect to that count: Your decision must be unanimous as to the existence of each aggravating factor that you find as to each count, ‘With respect to each count, if you ‘unanimously find that the State has not proven the existence of any aggravating factor with respect to that count, you shall record that finding in the special verdict form, and your deliberations ‘with respect to that count shall cease, In that event, ‘the Court will sentence the defendant to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on that count. Ifyou unanimously find that the Staté has ot proven the existence of any aggravating factor with respect to any count, you shall record that finding in the special verdict form, and inform the court that you have a verdict, You will then deliver your verdict in open court. If you unanimously find that the State has proven the existence of one or more aggravating factors with respect to one or more counts, you shall continue your deliberations only with respect to those counts. 2811/04/2010 THU 16:24 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV oso ‘XVI. Nonstatutory Mitigating Factors. ‘The defendant has the burden of proving the existence of any nonstatutory mitigating {factor by a preponderance of the evidence. In deterttiining whether a nonstatutory mitigating factor exists, you must consider all of the evidence in the case, regardless of which party introduced that evidence and regardless of whether that evidence was introduced in the guilt phase ot the penalty phase of the trial. ‘Annonstatutory mitigating factor is not a defense or excuse for any capital felony of which the defendant has been convicted. A defense or excutsc to a crime would be presented in the guilt phase of the tial and, ifbelioved, would defeat the'criminal charge, A nonstatutory mitigating factor is a factor which, in fairness and mercy, may'be considered as tending either to extenate or reduce the degree of the defendant’s culpability or blame for the offense or to otherwise constitute a basis for a sentence less than death. Your findings conceming the existence or nonexistence of such faotors in this case are vital in ensuring that the punishment imposed appropriately fits both the crime and the person ‘who committed it. ‘A nonstatutory mitigating factor must be established by the evidence. It can arise from the defendants character, background, or history, or ffom the nature and circumstances of the exime. ‘After you determine that a factor is establisted by the evidence, you must determine further whether that factor is mitigating in nature, considering al} the facts and circumstances of the case. Your consideration of nonstatuory mitigating factors must include not only factors introduced or argued for by the defendant diiting the penalty phase but also any other factor, established by the evidence, thet you as individual jurors may find constitute a basis for a sentence less than death. Ifa factor is establistied by a preponderance of the evidence, is 29.11/04/2010 THU 1 4 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIY Gost snitigating in nature, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and constitutes a basis for a sentence less than death, you must:find it to be a nonstatutory mitigating factor. In this ‘way, the law permits you, as individual jurors, o find the existence of mitigating factors even if such factors have been overlooked by the parties and the court. You must give thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties concerning the existence or nonexistence of nonstatutory mitigating factors, but you are neither bound nor limited by their arguments. Tt is within your discretion to accept or reject the arguments of any party or to go beyond those arguments to find nonstatutory mitigating factors that you find to be established by the evidence. : “The defendant argues thatthe followitig factors are nonstatutory mitigating factor: “1, Steven Hayes" family background and history reveal that he grew up in an alcoholic, abusive, dysfunctional environment that hada profound effect on his early childhood and adolescent development. : «2, Steven Hayes? history of substance abuse and addiction dating from early adolescence ‘manifests itself as a long-term illness and was a significant contributor to this tragedy. 3, Steven Hayes was a follower and inot the mastermind and leader of this crime, and once getting himself involved was unable to’ prevent the escalating violence due to his damaged weak follower personality and significant chiatactet flaws. 4, During the commission of the murders, Steven Hayes was in a state of intense rage, despair, and confusion. “5, Steven Flayes accepted responsibility for all his crimes early in the prosecution and offered fo enter guilty pleas to all charges in exchange for a life without the possibility of release 3011/04/2010 THU 16:24 FAX 203 867 6240 NH CRIMINAL DIV sentence, ‘ 46, Steven Hayes has responded subsequentto the crime with shame, humiliation, depression, suicidality and empathy for the victims: His response is sharp in contrast to the co- defendant's who has glorified in writing the exércise of violent criminal power and sexual abuse over the Petit family. “7, Steven Hayes’ conditions of confiniement since his arrest have restricted him to an isolation cell twenty-four hours, seven days-a-Week with absolutely no contact with other inmates. For a variety of correctional institutional reasons, if sentenced to life without the possibility of release, these conditions of corifinement will continue indefinitely for years to come. “8, Steven Hayes has a conscience and is remorseful. He finds it exceedingly difficult to live with himself given his involvement and the unchangeable outcome of tragedy and immense suffering in this case. : “9, Steven Hayes? unforgiving and arelenting burden of guilt coupled with his conditions of confinement make his life nearly unbearable and worse than any fear or dread of death. “10, The cumulative effect of any of the above factors, and/or any other factors you may deem important, which in fairness and mercy demoisrate that death isnot the appropriate sentence in this case.” : ‘Although you must give thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the parties, you have the authority o consider al of the evidence and determine whether a particular factor exists and further determine whether that factor is mitigating. Any factor that you find, however, must 31 Bose11/04/2010 THU 18:24 FAX 203 867 6240 NH_CRIMINAL DIV oss be established by the evidence, Ifa particular fact standing alone doés.not constitute a nonstatutory mitigating factor, you have the discretion to link that fact with other facts established by the evidence and determine ‘that the resulting combination of facts constitutes anonstatutory mitigating factor. To recapitulate, a nonstatutory mitigating factor exists if: (1) it concerns the defendant’s character, background or history, or the naire and'circumstances of the crime; (2) itis established by a preponderance of the evidencs arid (3) itis mitigating'in nature, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. ‘The decision as to whether a nonstatiitory mitigating factor exists is an individual one by each juror. j Bach of you must make a separate determination as to the existence of nonstatutory mitigating factors with respect to each count as-to Which you have found the existence of one or \ ‘more aggravating factors and as to which no statutory mitigating factor exists, While any factor you find to exist conceming the defendant's character, background, or history will necessarily exist with respect to cach count before you, a:factor that you find to exist concerning the nature and circumstances ofa specific crime may of may hot apply to th other erimes before you, depending on the facts that you find, aia With respect to each count, if you unarimovsly find thatthe State has proven the existence of one or more aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt and that no mitigating factor is established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, you shall record that finding in the special verdict form, and inform the court that You have a verdiet, You will then deliver your verdict in open court. If one or more jurors find that one or more nonstatutory mitigating factors 1 3211/04/2010 THU 16:25 FAX 203 867 6240 NA CRIMINAL DIV are established by a fair preponderance of the evidence, you must proceed to the weighing process, which I shall now describe, XVII. Weighing Process. With respect to any count as to whicli you lave unanimously found the nonexistence of a statutory mitigating factor and the existence of one'ot more ‘aggravating factors and one or more jurots have found the existence of one or more nonstatutory mitigating factors, you must determine whether the aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors found by those jurors. If, with respect to any count, you find that the aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors, the court will enpae a sentence of death by lethal injection on that count. If, with respect to any count, you determine that the aggravating factors do not outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors, the court will impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on that count. This can happen either if you find ‘that the nonstatutory mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating factors or if you find that the ageraveting factors and the nonstatutory mitigating factors are of equal weight and that neither outweighs the other. A sentence of death will b¢ iniposed on a count only if you affirmatively find that, as to that count, the aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors, ‘This is nota mechanical ora matherciical proces. I weighing the factors, it isthe quality of the respective factors, and not their siumber, that is important. One factor, on either side, may be so compelling that its weight is équal to or greater than the weight of numerous factors on the opposing side, The weight to b¢-accorded each factor is for you to decide, using ‘your judgment and life experience, Ifyou decide that the aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors by 33 oss11/04/2010 THU 16:28 FAX 203 867 6240 NW CRIMINAL DIV any degree or amount with respect to any count, you are in effect deciding that death is the appropriate punishment for that count and that you are persuaded of this beyond a reasonable doubt. In that event, you must make a reasoned mofal and individualized determination based on the defendant's background, character, and history-and the nature and circumstances of the crime, that death is the appropriate punishment, and yéu must come to this unanimous determination by engaging in a fall, individualized consideration as to whether death i the appropriate penalty for ‘the defendant. Consequently, you may find that the aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors by any degree or amount with respect to a particular count only if you are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that thie aggravating factors outweigh the nonstatutory mitigating factors and, therefore, only if you are persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate punishment for that count: J ‘have already charged you on the meaning of the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. At the end of your weighing process with respect to each count to which this instruction applies, you should record your findings on thé special verdict form and inform the court that you have a verdict, You will then deliver your verdict in open court. ‘XVIIL Your Deliberations. ‘After you have received the special verdict form and exhibits from the Clerk, you will ‘begin your deliberations. ! ‘We wil take the usual lunch break between 1:00 and 2:00 P.M. Ifyou wish to take other breaks, such as coffee breaks, at other times, you av fre to do so. Be sute that the Clerk ot ‘Marshall know the anticipated Jength of your break. 34: oss11/04/2010 THU 16:25 FAX 203 867 6240 NK CRIMINAL DIV ose No one will hurry you to reach a verdict ityou do not bave a verdict on any given day, ‘you will simply be brought back the next day t9esuime your deliberations. ‘You are permitted to deliberate only inthe. jury room when all twelve of you are present. If one of more jurors are not present for any reason, eis may not discuss the case. You must wait until al twelve of you are present, This rule istiiportant, If you have a question during your deliication, the foreperson should write the question down ona sheet of paper, sign and date it, and. knock on the door. The Marshal will then bring the question to me, and I will answer it in open court. tay take a few minutes to assemble the staff before you are brought into the courtroom to liar thé response. Please try 10 make any questions very precise. We cannot engage in an informal dislogue, and I will respond only to your written question. : IFyou need to have any testimony or any pat of my instructions read back, follow the ame procedure, Waite on a sheet of paper what i is you want to hear as precisely as you ean. For example, i you want to hear only the direct examination or the cross examination ofa patieular witness, please say so. Otherwise, we may have to réad the whole testimony XIX. Requirement of a Unanimous Verdict. : ‘Your verdict mast be unanimous, All tvelvé of you must agree on the verdict. As a check shat your verdict i in fact unanimous, the Clerk may ask each of you to individually announce your verdict in open court. 4 ach of you has taken an oath to deliver trv verdict according tothe evidence, Noone aust be false to that oath, but you have a duty, not only as individuals, but also collectively. That is the strength of the jury system. Bach of you takes into the jury box and the deliberation room 35°11/04/2010 THU 16:26 FAX 209 887 6240 your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to poo! that experience and wisdom, You do that by giving your views and listening to the: ‘Yiéws of others. There must necessarily be discussion, argument, and give and take within the seope of your oath. That is the way in which a ‘unanimous verdict is reached. XX. Procedure for Reporting Verdict. ‘When you reach your verdict and havé completed each of the special verdict forms, knock on the door and inform the marshal or clerk of that fact. Do not tell the court personnel what your verdict is. You will be brought info open court to deliver your verdict. It may take several minutes to assemble the necessary court personnel. Iwill review your completed special Verdict forms merely to determine that they have been completed appropriately. Assuming that they have hheen completed appropriately, the Clerk will then read each of the completed special verdict forms aloud, beginning with the special verdict {form pertaining to the Fourth Count, You will then be asked to orally indicate whether tis is, in fact, your verdict. ae ‘You should not expect me to make ariy comment on your verdict. It has been my task to rule on issues of evidence and to instruct yout on the law. It is your task to decide the case, and T vill eave that strictly up to you and make nd comment on what you decide. It is, of course, merely the division of duties, and not any lack of appreciation of your efforts that keeps me from commenting on your decision. Bos7