Walton in.
Walton: I received what you all proposed I should say. I think I'd be inclined to deviate somewhat from what both parties are requesting and tell the jury that the instruction that was given to them regarding reasonable doubt fully explains what that concept means and tell them that they need to go back and review in its entirety and reevaluate what I told them in their assessment of reasonable doubt. It is my belief that is what is contained in what I presented to them, what the govt's obligation is in satisfying reasonable doubt. I don't think I'd be inclined to indicate what the govt is requesting, because I'm not sure what they're asking. If the govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt, then I'd say no, and I have some concerns about responding in the way the govt has suggested. I'd be inclined to say that I don't fully understand what they're saying. Any comments.
Bonamici: The govt's request is merely that the court address the specific language the jury used. THe govt would object to directing them to the previous instructions.
Walton: I don't know what they're asking me. There was a situation where a woman's car fell on a child, it wouldn't be humanly possible that she pick up the car, but she did. I don't know what they're asking. I don't know whether they're asking whether govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt.
Walton: I don't know what they're asking me. There was a situation where a woman's car fell on a child, it wouldn't be humanly possible that she pick up the car, but she did. I don't know what they're asking. I don't know whether they're asking whether govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt.
Bonamici: What the govt has proposed is that your HOnor instruct the jury that the govt doesn't have to prove beyond human possibly–use their language so we're not injecting any language into it. We assume the jury has already read the instructions. Merely re-reading this back to them is not answering the question. If the defense had argued that the jury must acquit if it is humanly possible that the Defendant did not recall these events, we would have objected and the court would have provided a supplemental instruction. If the jury is believing that this is the statement of the law, then they need guidance.
Walton: I just don't know what they're asking. Bc the instructions tell them, the govt doesn't have to prove beyond mathematic or scientific certainty.
Fitz and Jeffress rise.
Fitz: My only point being, if you look at their note, after writing it at 10:30, they worked on it, then sent it out. If they had written, we'd like clarification of reasonable doubt. They said, "specifically." THe answer is no, and if we answer their specific question, that is not required to be proved. If you say no, but then referring to the reasonable doubt instruction. They've sent out a very specific note. I think we should do what the Supreme COurt says. THey've asked, do you have to prove that it is not humanly possible. If I'm a juror that sends out a note with that specificity.
Walton: I want to answer it if I understand what they're asking. They may be asking something that goes beyond what the govt needs to prove.
Fitz: I don't know how much more specific they could be.
Walton: Humanly possible is a nebulous term. I think I should ask them what they mean.
Fitz: Will the clarification be directed to humanly possible?
Walton: Yes, I'll indicate I don't know what they mean by that term.
Fitz: It'll be directed at those words?
Jeffress: The defense position is that the answer should be the opposite. WRT inviting the jury to ask further questions WRT the definition. Precedent directed judges not to inker.
Walton: I was one of the judges they needed to tinker with. THe court of appeals, yeah, they rebuffed me, but I eventually won.
Jeffress: once the court starts tinkering, you diminish the reasonable doubt standard.
Walton: I'm going to ask them to rephrase it. Maybe they'll come back and say, does the govt need to prove Walton in.
Walton: I received what you all proposed I should say. I think I'd be inclined to deviate somewhat from what both parties are requesting and tell the jury that the instruction that was given to them regarding reasonable doubt fully explains what that concept means and tell them that they need to go back and review in its entirety and reevaluate what I told them in their assessment of reasonable doubt. It is my belief that is what is contained in what I presented to them, what the govt's obligation is in satisfying reasonable doubt. I don't think I'd be inclined to indicate what the govt is requesting, because I'm not sure what they're asking. If the govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt, then I'd say no, and I have some concerns about responding in the way the govt has suggested. I'd be inclined to say that I don't fully understand what they're saying. Any comments.
Bonamici: The govt's request is merely that the court address the specific language the jury used. THe govt would object to directing them to the previous instructions.
Walton: I don't know what they're asking me. There was a situation where a woman's car fell on a child, it wouldn't be humanly possible that she pick up the car, but she did. I don't know what they're asking. I don't know whether they're asking whether govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt.
Bonamici: What the govt has proposed is that your HOnor instruct the jury that the govt doesn't have to prove beyond human possibly–use their language so we're not injecting any language into it. We assume the jury has already read the instructions. Merely re-reading this back to them is not answering the question. If the defense had argued that the jury must acquit if it is humanly possible that the Defendant did not recall these events, we would have objected and the court would have provided a supplemental instruction. If the jury is believing that this is the statement of the law, then they need guidance.
Walton: I just don't know what they're asking. Bc the instructions tell them, the govt doesn't have to prove beyond mathematic or scientific certainty.
Walton: I don't know what they're asking me. There was a situation where a woman's car fell on a child, it wouldn't be humanly possible that she pick up the car, but she did. I don't know what they're asking. I don't know whether they're asking whether govt has to prove guilt beyond all doubt.
Bonamici: What the govt has proposed is that your HOnor instruct the jury that the govt doesn't have to prove beyond human possibly–use their language so we're not injecting any language into it. We assume the jury has already read the instructions. Merely re-reading this back to them is not answering the question. If the defense had argued that the jury must acquit if it is humanly possible that the Defendant did not recall these events, we would have objected and the court would have provided a supplemental instruction. If the jury is believing that this is the statement of the law, then they need guidance.
Walton: I just don't know what they're asking. Bc the instructions tell them, the govt doesn't have to prove beyond mathematic or scientific certainty.
Fitz and Jeffress rise.
Fitz: My only point being, if you look at their note, after writing it at 10:30, they worked on it, then sent it out. If they had written, we'd like clarification of reasonable doubt. They said, "specifically." THe answer is no, and if we answer their specific question, that is not required to be proved. If you say no, but then referring to the reasonable doubt instruction. They've sent out a very specific note. I think we should do what the Supreme COurt says. THey've asked, do you have to prove that it is not humanly possible. If I'm a juror that sends out a note with that specificity.
Walton: I want to answer it if I understand what they're asking. They may be asking something that goes beyond what the govt needs to prove.
Fitz: I don't know how much more specific they could be.
Walton: Humanly possible is a nebulous term. I think I should ask them what they mean.
Fitz: Will the clarification be directed to humanly possible?
Walton: Yes, I'll indicate I don't know what they mean by that term.
Fitz: It'll be directed at those words?
Jeffress: The defense position is that the answer should be the opposite. WRT inviting the jury to ask further questions WRT the definition. Precedent directed judges not to inker.
Walton: I was one of the judges they needed to tinker with. THe court of appeals, yeah, they rebuffed me, but I eventually won.
Jeffress: once the court starts tinkering, you diminish the reasonable doubt standard.
Walton: I'm going to ask them to rephrase it. Maybe they'll come back and say, does the govt need to prove beyond all doubt.
9:21pm ET
9:21pm ET
More..
No comments:
Post a Comment