SIMPJUR

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
            PLEASE BE SEATED.
            AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE NOW BEEN
REJOINED BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF OUR JURY PANEL.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
      THE COURT: MR. COCHRAN, ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENSE, DO YOU
HAVE ANY FURTHER TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE TO PRESENT?
      MR. COCHRAN: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
      MR. COCHRAN: YOUR HONOR, I'M VERY PLEASED TO SAY THAT WE
HAVE NO FURTHER TESTIMONY TO PRESENT AT THIS TIME, AND AS
DIFFICULT AS IT IS, THE DEFENSE DOES REST AT THIS POINT.
            THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
      THE COURT: MISS CLARK, ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE?
      MS. CLARK: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
            GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
      THE JURY: GOOD MORNING.
      MS. CLARK: WE ASK THE COURT TO RECEIVE ALL OF THE PEOPLE'S
EXHIBITS AND THE PEOPLE REST.

          (PEO'S EXHIBITS = IN EVID)

      THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.
            UPON RECEIPT OF THE EXHIBITS FROM BOTH SIDES, BOTH
SIDES HAVING NOW RESTED, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS YOU HEARD, THE
COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENSE HAVE RESTED
THEIR CASE. THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE
PRESENTED TO YOU.
            AND IT IS NOW GOING TO BE MY DUTY TO INSTRUCT YOU ON
THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE.
            AFTER I FINISH INSTRUCTING YOU ON THE LAW, THEN WE
WILL HEAR THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS AND THAT WILL COMMENCE
ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 26TH.
            ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER THE 25TH, I WILL BE HERE WITH
THE ATTORNEYS WHO ARE AVAILABLE, WE WILL ORGANIZE ALL THE
EXHIBITS SO THAT WHEN THE ARGUMENT COMMENCES IT WILL GO FORWARD
IN AN ORDERLY AND EFFICIENT AND QUICK MANNER, I HOPE.
            HAVING SAID THAT, THERE IS A PROPOSAL THAT HAS BEEN
MADE THAT I AM CONTEMPLATING WITH REGARD TO THE ARGUMENTS BY THE
ATTORNEYS AND THAT IS TO EXTEND THE COURT HOURS FOR NEXT WEEK.

             THE PROPOSAL IS TO START WITH THE NORMAL MORNING
SESSION AT NINE O'CLOCK, GO UNTIL NOON. START THE AFTERNOON
SESSION AND GO TO APPROXIMATELY 5:00 OR 6:00 IN THE EVENING.
TAKE A BREAK FOR AN EVENING MEAL AND THEN HAVE A SESSION IN THE
EVENING TO APPROXIMATELY 8:00 OR NINE O'CLOCK IN THE EVENING.
            AND IT IS MY FEELING THAT BY DOING THAT, THAT WE CAN
FINISH THE ARGUMENTS PERHAPS NEXT WEEK OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
THEREAFTER.
            I KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT THAT WOULD DISRUPT YOUR
SCHEDULE. IT WOULD PLACE AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THE COURT STAFF AND
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NOT DECIDED YET TO DO, BUT I WOULD
LIKE YOUR INPUT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO
STAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL EVENING SESSION EACH DAY UNTIL WE HAVE
CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENTS.
            AND I'M ACTUALLY -- I HAVE SEEN EIGHT NODS
AFFIRMATIVE. I SEE SMILES. EVERYBODY?
            WELL, WE HAVE ONE UNANIMOUS DECISION ALREADY.
            ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
            THEN THIS IS ALSO SUBJECT -- I WILL -- AS YOU KNOW, I
HAVE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO GET YOU ALL FED. THE BAILIFFS HAVE
TO CHANGE THEIR SCHEDULE. I MIGHT HAVE TO BRING IN A THIRD COURT
REPORTER. IT WILL BE -- I WILL HAVE SOME LOGISTICAL THINGS TO DO
BEFORE WE MAKE THAT IN STONE, BUT I WANTED FIRST TO KNOW WHETHER
OR NOT YOU WERE WILLING TO DO IT. AND HAVING GOTTEN AFFIRMATIVE
ANSWERS, I WILL PURSUE THAT THIS AFTERNOON.
            ALL RIGHT.
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY, YOU HAVE HEARD --
EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.
            AND DEPUTY BASHMAKIAN, NOW THAT I'M STARTING THE
INSTRUCTIONS, NOBODY IS TO ENTER OR LEAVE THE COURTROOM DURING
THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS.
            ALL RIGHT.

            (READING.)

                LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:
      YOU HAVE HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND IT IS NOW MY DUTY TO
INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THIS CASE. AFTER I
CONCLUDE READING THESE INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU, WE WILL COMMENCE WITH
THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL. THE LAW REQUIRES THAT I READ THESE
INSTRUCTIONS TO YOU HERE IN OPEN COURT. PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY.
IT IS ALSO MY PERSONAL POLICY THAT YOU WILL HAVE THESE
INSTRUCTIONS IN THEIR WRITTEN FORM IN THE JURY ROOM TO REFER TO
DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
                YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION ON THE FACTS AND THE
LAW.
                YOU HAVE TWO DUTIES TO PERFORM: FIRST, YOU MUST
DETERMINE THE FACT FROM THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED IN THE TRIAL AND
NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. A "FACT" IS SOMETHING THAT IS PROVED
DIRECTLY OR CIRCUMSTANTIALLY BY THE EVIDENCE OR BY STIPULATION. A
STIPULATION IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS REGARDING THE
FACTS. SECOND, YOU MUST APPLY THE LAW THAT I STATE TO YOU TO THE
FACTS AS YOU DETERMINE THEM AND IN THIS WAY ARRIVE AT YOUR
VERDICT AND ANY FINDING YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO INCLUDE IN YOUR
VERDICT.
                YOU MUST ACCEPT AND FOLLOW THE LAW AS I STATE IT
TO YOU, WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THE LAW.
            IF ANYTHING CONCERNING THE LAW SAID BY THE ATTORNEYS
IN THEIR ARGUMENTS OR AT ANY OTHER TIME DURING THE TRIAL
CONFLICTS WITH MY INSTRUCTIONS ON THE LAW, YOU MUST FOLLOW MY
INSTRUCTIONS.

      YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY PITY FOR A DEFENDANT OR BY
PREJUDICE AGAINST HIM. YOU MUST NOT BE BIASED AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN ARRESTED FOR THIS OFFENSE, CHARGED
WITH A CRIME OR BROUGHT TO TRIAL. NONE OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IS
EVIDENCE OF GUILT AND YOU MUST NOT INFER OR ASSUME FROM ANY OR
ALL OF THEM THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO BE GUILTY THAN INNOCENT.
YOU MUST NOT BE INFLUENCED BY MERE SENTIMENT, CONJECTURE,
SYMPATHY, PASSION, PREJUDICE, PUBLIC OPINION OR PUBLIC FEELING.
BOTH THE PROSECUTION AND THE DEFENDANT HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT
THAT YOU WILL CONSCIENTIOUSLY CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE EVIDENCE,
APPLY THE LAW AND REACH A JUST VERDICT REGARDLESS OF THE
CONSEQUENCES.

      IF ANY RULE, DIRECTION OR IDEA IS REPEATED OR STATED IN
DIFFERENT WAYS IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS, NO EMPHASIS IS INTENDED AND
YOU MUST NOT DRAW ANY INFERENCE BECAUSE OF ITS REPETITION. DO
NOT SINGLE OUT ANY PARTICULAR SENTENCE OR ANY INDIVIDUAL POINT OR
INSTRUCTION AND IGNORE THE OTHERS. CONSIDER THE INSTRUCTIONS AS
A WHOLE AND EACH IN LIGHT OF ALL THE OTHERS.
                THE ORDER IN WHICH THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE GIVEN HAS
NO SIGNIFICANCE AS TO THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE.

      STATEMENTS MADE BY ATTORNEYS DURING THE TRIAL ARE NOT
EVIDENCE, ALTHOUGH IF THE ATTORNEYS HAVE STIPULATED TO OR AGREED
TO A FACT, YOU MUST REGARD THAT FACT AS CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN.
                IF AN OBJECTION WAS SUSTAINED TO A QUESTION, DO
NOT GUESS WHAT THE ANSWER MIGHT HAVE BEEN. DO NOT SPECULATE AS
TO THE REASON FOR THE OBJECTION.
                DO NOT ASSUME TO BE TRUE ANY INSINUATION
SUGGESTED BY A QUESTION ASKED OF A WITNESS. A QUESTION IS NOT
EVIDENCE AND MAY BE CONSIDERED ONLY AS IT ENABLES YOU TO
UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER.
       DO NOT CONSIDER FOR ANY PURPOSE ANY OFFER OF EVIDENCE THAT
WAS REJECTED BY THE COURT OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT WAS STRICKEN BY
THE COURT. YOU MUST TREAT IT AS THOUGH YOU HAD NEVER HEARD IT.

      YOU MUST DECIDE ALL QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS CASE FROM THE
EVIDENCE RECEIVED HERE IN COURT IN THIS TRIAL AND NOT FROM ANY
OTHER SOURCE.
      YOU MUST NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THE
FACTS OR THE LAW OR CONSIDER OR DISCUSS FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE
HAS BEEN NO EVIDENCE. THIS MEANS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT YOU MUST NOT
ON YOUR OWN VISIT THE SCENE, CONDUCT EXPERIMENTS OR CONSULT
REFERENCE WORKS OR PERSONS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
                YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE WITH ANY OTHER
PERSON EXCEPT A FELLOW JUROR, AND YOU MUST NOT DISCUSS THE CASE
WITH A FELLOW JUROR UNTIL THE CASE IS SUBMITTED TO YOU FOR YOUR
DECISION AND THEN ONLY WHEN ALL TWELVE JURORS ARE PRESENT IN THE
JURY ROOM.

      EVIDENCE CONSISTS OF THE TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, WRITINGS,
MATERIAL OBJECTS OR ANYTHING PRESENTED TO THE SENSES AND OFFERED
TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A FACT.
      EVIDENCE IS EITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
                DIRECT EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT DIRECTLY PROVES
A FACT WITHOUT THE NECESSITY OF AN INFERENCE. IT IS EVIDENCE
WHICH BY ITSELF, IF FOUND TO BE TRUE, ESTABLISHES THAT FACT.
                CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE THAT, IF
FOUND TO BE TRUE, PROVES A FACT FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER FACT MAY BE DRAWN.
                AN INFERENCE IS A DEDUCTION OF FACT THAT MAY
LOGICALLY AND REASONABLY BE DRAWN FROM ANOTHER FACT OR GROUP OF
FACTS ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE.

      IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT FACTS BE PROVED BY DIRECT
EVIDENCE. THEY MAY BE PROVED ALSO BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OR
BY A COMBINATION OF DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BOTH DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ARE ACCEPTABLE
AS A MEANS OF PROOF. NEITHER IS ENTITLED TO ANY GREATER WEIGHT
THAN THE OTHER.

      HOWEVER, A FINDING OF GUILT AS TO ANY CRIME MAY NOT BE
BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCES
ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANT
IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME, BUT TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY
OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
                FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE
A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE DEFENDANT'S
GUILT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IN OTHER WORDS,
BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO ESTABLISH GUILT MAY BE FOUND TO
HAVE BEEN PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR
CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE
PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
                ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS TO ANY
PARTICULAR COUNT IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE
INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S GUILT AND
THE OTHER TO HIS INNOCENCE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION
WHICH POINTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE AND REJECT THAT
INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO HIS GUILT.
                IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH
EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER
INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

      IF YOU FIND THAT BEFORE THIS TRIAL THE DEFENDANT MADE A
WILLFULLY FALSE OR DELIBERATELY MISLEADING STATEMENT CONCERNING
THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS NOW BEING TRIED, YOU MAY CONSIDER SUCH
STATEMENT AS A CIRCUMSTANCE TENDING TO PROVE CONSCIOUSNESS OF
GUILT. HOWEVER, SUCH CONDUCT IS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO
PROVE GUILT, AND ITS WEIGHT AND SIGNIFICANCE, IF ANY, ARE MATTERS
FOR YOUR DETERMINATION.

      CERTAIN EVIDENCE WAS LIMITED -- EXCUSE ME.

      CERTAIN EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE.
      AT THE TIME THIS EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED YOU WERE ADMONISHED
THAT IT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY YOU FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE
OTHER THAN THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ADMITTED.
                DO NOT CONSIDER SUCH LIMITED EVIDENCE FOR ANY
PURPOSE EXCEPT THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS ADMITTED.

      NEITHER SIDE IS REQUIRED TO CALL AS WITNESSES ALL PERSONS
WHO MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT ANY OF THE EVENTS DISCLOSED BY THE
EVIDENCE OR WHO MAY APPEAR TO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THESE EVENTS
OR TO PRODUCE ALL OBJECTS OR DOCUMENTS MENTIONED OR SUGGESTED BY
THE EVIDENCE.

      TESTIMONY GIVEN BY A WITNESS AT A PRIOR PROCEEDING WHO WAS
UNAVAILABLE AT THIS TRIAL HAS BEEN READ TO YOU FROM THE
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF THAT PROCEEDING. YOU MUST CONSIDER SUCH
TESTIMONY AS IF IT HAD BEEN GIVEN BEFORE YOU IN THIS TRIAL.

       WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NURSE THANO PERATIS, EVIDENCE THAT
ON SOME FORMER OCCASION A WITNESS MADE A STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS
THAT WERE INCONSISTENT OR CONSISTENT WITH HIS OR HER TESTIMONY IN
THIS TRIAL, MAY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU NOT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
TESTING THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS, BUT ALSO AS EVIDENCE OF
THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS AS STATED BY THE WITNESS ON SUCH FORMER
OCCASION.
                EVIDENCE OF THE THANO PERATIS VIDEO TAPED
STATEMENT, WHICH IS PEOPLE'S EXHIBIT 615, WHICH MAY INCLUDE
STATEMENT THAT WERE CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH HIS FORMER
TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY READING THE TRANSCRIPT OF HIS FORMER
TESTIMONY GIVEN BEFORE BOTH -- EXCUSE ME -- GIVEN AT THE
PRELIMINARY HEARING, MAY BE CONSIDERED BY YOU SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF TESTING THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. PERATIS' FORMER
TESTIMONY.
                IF YOU DISBELIEVE A WITNESS' TESTIMONY THAT HE OR
SHE NO LONGER REMEMBERS A CERTAIN EVENT, SUCH TESTIMONY IS
INCONSISTENT WITH A PRIOR STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS BY HIM OR HER
DESCRIBING THAT EVENT.

      EVERY PERSON WHO TESTIFIES UNDER OATH IS A WITNESS. YOU
ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS AND THE
WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE TESTIMONY OF EACH WITNESS.
                IN DETERMINING THE BELIEVABILITY OF A WITNESS,
YOU MAY CONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE
OR DISPROVE THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
                THE EXTENT OF THE OPPORTUNITY OR THE ABILITY OF
THE WITNESS TO SEE OR HEAR OR OTHERWISE BECOME AWARE OF ANY
MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED;
      THE EFFECTS, IF ANY, FROM THE USE OR CONSUMPTION OF
ALCOHOL, DRUGS OR OTHER INTOXICANT BY THE WITNESS AT THE TIME OF
THE EVENTS ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED OR AT THE TIME
OF HIS OR HER TESTIMONY;
      THE ABILITY OF THE WITNESS TO REMEMBER OR TO COMMUNICATE
ANY MATTER ABOUT WHICH THE WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED;
      THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THAT TESTIMONY;

      THE DEMEANOR AND MANNER OF THE WITNESS WHILE TESTIFYING;
      THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A BIAS, INTEREST OR OTHER
MOTIVE;
      EVIDENCE OF THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF ANY FACT
TESTIFIED TO BY THE WITNESS;
      THE ATTITUDE OF THE WITNESS TOWARD THIS ACTION OR TOWARD
THE GIVING OF TESTIMONY;
      A STATEMENT PREVIOUSLY MADE BY THE WITNESS THAT IS
CONSISTENT OR INCONSISTENT WITH THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS;
      THE CHARACTER OF THE WITNESS FOR HONESTY OR TRUTHFULNESS OR
THEIR OPPOSITES;
      AN ADMISSION BY THE WITNESS OF UNTRUTHFULNESS.

      DISCREPANCIES IN A WITNESS' TESTIMONY, OR BETWEEN HIS OR
HER TESTIMONY AND THAT OF OTHERS, IF THERE WERE ANY, DO NOT
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE WITNESS SHOULD BE DISCREDITED. FAILURE
OF RECOLLECTION IS A COMMON EXPERIENCE AND INNOCENT
MISRECOLLECTION IS NOT UNCOMMON. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT TWO
PERSONS WITNESSING AN INCIDENT OR TRANSACTION OFTEN WILL SEE OR
HEAR IT DIFFERENTLY. WHETHER A DISCREPANCY PERTAINS TO A FACT OF
IMPORTANCE OR ONLY TO A TRIVIAL DETAIL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN
WEIGHING ITS SIGNIFICANCE.

      A WITNESS WHO IS WILLFULLY FALSE IN ONE MATERIAL PART OF
HIS OR HER TESTIMONY IS TO BE DISTRUSTED IN OTHERS. YOU MAY
REJECT THE WHOLE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO WILLFULLY HAS
TESTIFIED FALSELY AS TO A MATERIAL POINT UNLESS FROM ALL THE
EVIDENCE YOU BELIEVE THE PROBABILITY OF TRUTH FAVORS HIS OR HER
TESTIMONY IN OTHER PARTICULARS.

      YOU ARE NOT BOUND TO DECIDE AN ISSUE OF FACT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE TESTIMONY OF A NUMBER OF WITNESSES WHICH DOES NOT
CONVINCE YOU, AS AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF A LESSER NUMBER OR
OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH APPEALS TO YOUR MIND WITH MORE CONVINCING
FORCE. YOU MAY NOT DISREGARD THE TESTIMONY OF THE GREATER NUMBER
OF WITNESSES MERELY FROM CAPRICE, WHIM, PREJUDICE OR FROM A
DESIRE TO FAVOR ONE SIDE AS AGAINST THE OTHER.   YOU MUST NOT
DECIDE AN ISSUE BY THE SIMPLE PROCESS OF COUNTING THE NUMBER OF
WITNESSES WHO HAVE TESTIFIED ON THE OPPOSING SIDES, THE FINAL
TEST IS NOT IN THE RELATIVE NUMBER OF WITNESSES, BUT IN THE
CONVINCING FORCE OF THE EVIDENCE.

      YOU SHOULD GIVE THE TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE WITNESS WHATEVER
WEIGHT YOU THINK IT DESERVES. HOWEVER, TESTIMONY BY ONE WITNESS
WHICH YOU BELIEVE CONCERNING ANY FACT IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROOF
OF THAT FACT. YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW ALL EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE PROOF OF SUCH FACT DEPENDS.

      A PERSON IS QUALIFIED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT IF HE OR SHE
HAS SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, EXPERIENCE, TRAINING OR EDUCATION
SUFFICIENT TO QUALIFY HIM OR HER AS AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT TO
WHICH HIS OR HER TESTIMONY PERTAINS.
                A DULY QUALIFIED EXPERT MAY GIVE AN OPINION ON
QUESTIONS IN CONTROVERSY AT A TRIAL. TO ASSIST YOU IN DECIDING
SUCH QUESTIONS, YOU MAY CONSIDER THE OPINION, WITH THE REASONS
GIVEN FOR IT, IF ANY, BY THE EXPERT WHO GIVES THE OPINION. YOU
MAY ALSO CONSIDER THE QUALIFICATIONS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE
EXPERT.
                YOU ARE NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT AN EXPERT OPINION AS
CONCLUSIVE, BUT SHOULD GIVE TO IT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT
TO BE ENTITLED. YOU MAY DISREGARD ANY SUCH OPINION IF YOU FIND
IT TO BE UNREASONABLE.

      IN EXAMINING AN EXPERT WITNESS COUNSEL MAY PROPOUND TO HIM
OR HER A TYPE OF QUESTION KNOWN IN THE LAW AS A HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTION. BY SUCH A QUESTION THE WITNESS IS ASKED TO ASSUME TO
BE TRUE A SET OF FACTS AND TO GIVE AN OPINION BASED UPON THAT
ASSUMPTION.
                IN PERMITTING SUCH A QUESTION, THE COURT DOES NOT
RULE AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY FIND THAT ALL THE ASSUMED FACTS
HAVE BEEN PROVED.
            THE COURT ONLY DETERMINES THAT THOSE ASSUMED FACTS
ARE WITHIN THE PROBABLE OR POSSIBLE RANGE OF THE EVIDENCE. IT IS
FOR YOU, THE JURY, TO FIND FROM ALL THE EVIDENCE WHETHER OR NOT
THE FACTS ASSUMED IN A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION HAVE BEEN PROVED. IF
YOU SHOULD FIND THAT ANY ASSUMPTION IN SUCH QUESTION HAS NOT BEEN
PROVED, YOU ARE TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THAT FAILURE ON THE
PROOF -- EXCUSE
ME -- YOU ARE DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF THAT FAILURE OF PROOF ON
THE VALUE AND WEIGHT OF THE EXPERT OPINION BASED UPON THE ASSUMED
FACTS.

      IN RESOLVING ANY CONFLICT THAT MAY EXIST IN THE TESTIMONY
OF EXPERT WITNESSES, YOU MUST WEIGH THE OPINION OF ONE EXPERT
AGAINST THAT OF ANOTHER. IN DOING THIS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE
RELATIVE QUALIFICATIONS AND CREDIBILITY OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES,
AS WELL AS THE REASONS FOR EACH OPINION AND THE FACTS AND OTHER
MATTERS UPON WHICH IT WAS BASED.

      IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN THE OPINION EXPRESSED
BY ANY WITNESS WHO DID NOT TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT WITNESS, YOU
SHOULD CONSIDER HIS OR HER CREDIBILITY, THE EXTENT OF HIS OR HER
OPPORTUNITY TO PERCEIVE THE MATTERS UPON WHICH HIS OR HER OPINION
IS BASED AND THE REASONS, IF ANY, GIVEN FOR IT. YOU ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO ACCEPT SUCH OPINION BUT SHOULD GIVE IT THE WEIGHT, IF
ANY, TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED.

      THE COURT HAS ADMITTED PHYSICAL EVIDENCE SUCH AS BLOOD,
HAIR AND FIBER EVIDENCE AND EXPERTS' OPINIONS CONCERNING THE
ANALYSIS OF SUCH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. YOU ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF
WHETHER ANY SUCH EVIDENCE HAS A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE ANY
FACT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW AND
CONSIDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING EACH ITEM OF EVIDENCE,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ITS DISCOVERY, COLLECTION, STORAGE
AND ANALYSIS. IF YOU DETERMINE ANY ITEM OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT
HAVE A TENDENCY IN REASON TO PROVE ANY ELEMENT OF THE CRIMES
CHARGED OR THE IDENTITY OF THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIMES CHARGED,
YOU MUST DISREGARD SUCH EVIDENCE.

      YOU HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT FREQUENCY ESTIMATES
CALCULATED FOR MATCHES BETWEEN KNOWN REFERENCE BLOOD SAMPLES AND
SOME OF THE BLOODSTAIN EVIDENCE ITEMS IN THIS CASE. THE RANDOM
MATCH PROBABILITY STATISTIC USED BY DNA EXPERTS IS NOT THE
EQUIVALENT OF A STATISTIC THAT TELLS YOU THE LIKELIHOOD OF
WHETHER A DEFENDANT COMMITTED A CRIME. THE RANDOM MATCH
PROBABILITY STATISTIC IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT A RANDOM PERSON IN
THE POPULATION WOULD MATCH THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE FOUND IN
THE CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE AND IN THE REFERENCE SAMPLE. THESE
FREQUENCY ESTIMATES ARE BEING PRESENTED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE
OF ASSISTING YOU IN DETERMINING WHAT SIGNIFICANCE TO ATTACH TO
THOSE BLOODSTAIN TESTING RESULTS.
                FREQUENCY ESTIMATES AND LABORATORY ERRORS ARE
DIFFERENT PHENOMENA. BOTH SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
WHAT SIGNIFICANCE TO ATTACH TO BLOODSTAIN TESTING RESULTS.

      EVIDENCE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING
THAT THE DEFENDANT COMMITTED CRIMES OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH HE
IS ON TRIAL.
      SUCH EVIDENCE, IF BELIEVED, WAS NOT RECEIVED AND MAY NOT BE
CONSIDERED BY YOU TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS A PERSON OF BAD
CHARACTER OR THAT HE HAS A DISPOSITION TO COMMIT CRIMES.
                SUCH EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED AND MAY BE CONSIDERED
BY YOU ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DETERMINING IF IT TENDS TO
SHOW:
      A CHARACTERISTIC METHOD, PLAN OR SCHEME IN THE COMMISSION
OF CRIMINAL ACTS SIMILAR TO THE METHOD, PLAN OR SCHEME USED IN
THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE IN THIS CASE WHICH WOULD FURTHER
TEND TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTENT WHICH IS A NECESSARY
ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED, THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO
COMMITTED THE CRIME, IF ANY, OF WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED OR
A CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN THE OTHER OFFENSE AND THE ONE OF WHICH
THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED, SO THAT IT MAY BE INFERRED THAT IF THE
DEFENDANT COMMITTED THE OTHER OFFENSES, THE DEFENDANT ALSO
COMMITTED THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THIS CASE;
      THE EXISTENCE OF THE INTENT WHICH IS NECESSARY -- WHICH IS
A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED;
      THE IDENTITY THE PERSON WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME, IF ANY, OF
WHICH THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED;
      A MOTIVE FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
                FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU MAY
CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE, YOU MUST WEIGH IT IN THE SAME MANNER AS
YOU DO ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
                YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO CONSIDER SUCH EVIDENCE
FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

      WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PRECEDING INSTRUCTION, SUCH OTHER
CRIME OR CRIMES PURPORTEDLY COMMITTED BY A DEFENDANT MUST BE
PROVED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. YOU MUST NOT CONSIDER
SUCH EVIDENCE FOR ANY PURPOSE UNLESS YOU ARE SATISFIED THAT THE
DEFENDANT COMMITTED SUCH OTHER CRIME OR CRIME.
                THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THESE
FACTS BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.
                WITHIN THIS LIMITED CONTEXT "PREPONDERANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE" MEANS EVIDENCE THAT HAS MORE CONVINCING FORCE AND THE
GREATER PROBABILITY OF TRUTH THAN THAT OPPOSED TO IT. IF THE
EVIDENCE IS SO EVENLY BALANCED THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO FIND THAT
THE EVIDENCE ON EITHER SIDE OF AN ISSUE PREPONDERATES, YOUR
FINDING ON THAT ISSUE MUST BE AGAINST THE PARTY WHO HAS THE
BURDEN OF PROVING IT.
      YOU SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCE BEARING UPON EVERY
ISSUE, REGARDLESS OF WHO PRODUCED IT.

      MOTIVE IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AND NEED NOT
BE SHOWN. HOWEVER, YOU MAY CONSIDER MOTIVE OR LACK OF MOTIVE AS
A CIRCUMSTANCE IN THIS CASE. PRESENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO
ESTABLISH GUILT. ABSENCE OF MOTIVE MAY TEND TO ESTABLISH
INNOCENCE.
            YOU WILL THEREFORE GIVE ITS PRESENCE OR ABSENCE, AS
THE CASE MAY BE, THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FIND IT TO BE ENTITLED.

      A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY. YOU MUST NOT DRAW ANY INFERENCE
FROM THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT DOES NOT TESTIFY. FURTHER, YOU
MUST NEITHER DISCUSS THIS MATTER NOR PERMIT IT TO ENTER INTO YOUR
DELIBERATIONS IN ANY WAY.

      IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO TESTIFY, THE DEFENDANT MAY
CHOOSE TO RELY UPON THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AND UPON THE
FAILURE, IF ANY, OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT EVERY ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED AGAINST HIM.
NO LACK OF TESTIMONY ON THE DEFENDANT'S PART WILL MAKE UP FOR A
FAILURE OF PROOF BY THE PROSECUTION SO AS TO SUPPORT A FINDING
AGAINST HIM ON ANY SUCH ESSENTIAL ELEMENT.

      AN ADMISSION IS A STATEMENT MADE BY THE DEFENDANT OTHER
THAN AT HIS TRIAL WHICH DOES NOT BY ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGE HIS GUILT
OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH SUCH DEFENDANT IS ON TRIAL, BUT WHICH
STATEMENT TENDS TO PROVE HIS GUILT WHEN CONSIDERED WITH THE REST
OF THE EVIDENCE.
                YOU ARE THE EXCLUSIVE JUDGES AS TO WHETHER THE
DEFENDANT MADE AN ADMISSION, AND IF SO, WHETHER SUCH STATEMENT IS
TRUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IF YOU SHOULD FIND THAT THE DEFENDANT
DID NOT MAKE THE STATEMENT, YOU MUST REJECT IT. IF YOU FIND THAT
IT IS TRUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, YOU MAY CONSIDER THE PART WHICH
YOU FIND TO BE TRUE.
      EVIDENCE OF AN ORAL ADMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT SHOULD BE
VIEWED WITH CAUTION.

      NO PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNLESS
THERE IS SOME PROOF OF EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIME INDEPENDENT OF
ANY ADMISSION MADE BY HIM OUTSIDE OF THIS TRIAL.
                THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE
COMMITTED A CRIME IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF THE CRIME NOR IS THE
DEGREE OF THE CRIME. SUCH IDENTITY OR DEGREE OF THE CRIME MAY BE
ESTABLISHED BY AN ADMISSION.

      WITNESS RON SHIPP TESTIFIED TO A STATEMENT ALLEGED TO HAVE
BEEN MADE BY THE DEFENDANT CONCERNING DREAMS. YOU MUST FIRST
DETERMINE WHETHER SUCH STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT. IF
YOU FIND THE STATEMENT WAS NOT MADE BY THE DEFENDANT, YOU SHALL
DISREGARD THE STATEMENT. IF YOU FIND THAT THE STATEMENT REFERRED
TO SUBCONSCIOUS THOUGHTS WHILE ASLEEP, YOU ARE TO DISREGARD THE
STATEMENT. IF YOU FIND THAT THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO AN
EXPRESSION OF A DESIRE OR EXPECTATION, YOU MAY GIVE TO SUCH
STATEMENT THE WEIGHT TO WHICH YOU FEEL IT IS ENTITLED. EVIDENCE
OF ORAL STATEMENTS BY A DEFENDANT SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH CAUTION.

      A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL ACTION IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT
UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED, AND IN CASE OF A REASONABLE DOUBT
WHETHER HIS GUILT IS SATISFACTORILY SHOWN, HE IS ENTITLED TO A
VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION PLACES UPON THE
PROSECUTION THE BURDEN OF PROVING HIM GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT.
      REASONABLE DOUBT IS DEFINED AS FOLLOWS:
                IT IS NOT A MERE POSSIBLE DOUBT, BECAUSE
EVERYTHING RELATING TO HUMAN AFFAIRS IS OPEN TO SOME POSSIBLE OR
IMAGINARY DOUBT. IT IS THAT STATE OF THE CASE WHICH, AFTER THE
ENTIRE COMPARISON AND CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, LEAVES
THE MIND OF THE JURORS IN THAT CONDITION THAT THEY CANNOT SAY
THEY FEEL AN ABIDING CONVICTION OF THE TRUTH OF THE CHARGE.
                THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE
INFORMATION AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS THE PERPETRATOR OF ANY
SUCH CHARGED CRIME. THE DEFENDANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE
HIMSELF INNOCENT OR TO PROVE THAT ANY OTHER PERSON COMMITTED THE
CRIMES CHARGED.

      IN THE CRIMES CHARGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2, THERE MUST EXIST A
UNION OR JOINT OPERATION OF ACT OR CONDUCT AND A CERTAIN SPECIFIC
INTENT OR MENTAL STATE IN THE MIND OF THE PERPETRATOR. UNLESS
SUCH SPECIFIC INTENT AND/OR MENTAL STATE EXISTS, THE CRIME TO
WHICH THEY RELATE IS NOT COMMITTED.
                THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE REQUIRES
THE SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL KNOWN AS EXPRESS MALICE.
      THE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE REQUIRES THE
SPECIFIC INTENT TO KILL KNOWN AS EXPRESS MALICE AND THE MENTAL
STATE OF PREMEDITATION AND DELIBERATION.
      THESE TERMS ARE MORE FULLY DEFINED LATER IN THESE
INSTRUCTIONS.

      THE SPECIFIC INTENT OR MENTAL STATE WITH WHICH AN ACT IS
DONE MAY BE SHOWN BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE COMMISSION
OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, YOU MAY NOT FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF
THE CRIMES CHARGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2, OR THE CRIME OF SECOND
DEGREE MURDER, WHICH IS A LESSER CRIME, UNLESS THE PROVED
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT ONLY, ONE, CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT
THE DEFENDANT HAD THE REQUIRED SPECIFIC INTENT OR MENTAL STATE,
BUT TWO, CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
                ALSO, IF THE EVIDENCE AS TO ANY SUCH SPECIFIC
INTENT OR MENTAL STATE IS SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE
INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH POINTS TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE
SPECIFIC INTENT OR MENTAL STATE, AND ANOTHER TO THE ABSENCE OF
THE SPECIFIC INTENT OR MENTAL STATE, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT
INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO THE ABSENCE OF THE SPECIFIC INTENT
OR MENTAL STATE. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF
THE EVIDENCE AS TO SUCH SPECIFIC INTENT OR MENTAL STATE APPEARS
TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER INTERPRETATION TO BE
UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE INTERPRETATION AND
REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

      EVIDENCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THAT
THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME AND PLACE OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS HERE ON TRIAL.
IF AFTER A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME THE
CRIME WAS COMMITTED, YOU MUST FIND HIM NOT GUILTY.

      THE DEFENDANT IS ACCUSED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2 OF THE HAVING
COMMITTED THE CRIME OF MURDER, A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SECTION
187.
      EVERY PERSON WHO UNLAWFULLY KILLS A HUMAN BEING WITH MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME OF MURDER IN VIOLATION OF
SECTION 187 OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE.
                IN ORDER TO PROVE SUCH CRIME, EACH OF THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVED:

      ONE, A HUMAN BEING WAS KILLED;
      TWO, THE KILLING WAS UNLAWFUL;
      AND THREE, THE KILLING WAS DONE WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
                EXPRESS MALICE IS DEFINED AS WHEN THERE IS
MANIFESTED AN INTENTION UNLAWFULLY TO KILL A HUMAN BEING. THE
MENTAL STATE -- EXCUSE ME.
      WHEN IT IS SHOWN THAT A KILLING RESULTED FROM THE
INTENTIONAL DOING OF AN ACT WITH EXPRESS MALICE, NO OTHER MENTAL
STATE NEED BE SHOWN TO ESTABLISH THE MENTAL STATE OF MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT.
      THE MENTAL STATE CONSTITUTING MALICE AFORETHOUGHT DOES NOT
NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY ILL WILL OR HATRED OF THE PERSON KILLED.
      THE WORD "AFORETHOUGHT" DOES NOT IMPLY DELIBERATION OR THE
LAPSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME. IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE REQUIRED
MENTAL STATE MUST PRECEDE RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE ACT.

      ALL KILLING, WHICH IS PERPETRATED BY ANY KIND OF WILLFUL,
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED KILLING WITH EXPRESS MALICE
AFORETHOUGHT, IS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE.
      THE WORD "WILLFUL," AS USED IN THIS INSTRUCTION, MEANS
INTENTIONAL. THE WORD "DELIBERATE" MEANS FORMED OR ARRIVED AT OR
DETERMINED UPON AS A RESULT OF CAREFUL THOUGHT AND WEIGHING OF
THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR AND AGAINST THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION.
THE WORD "PREMEDITATED" MEANS CONSIDERED BEFOREHAND.
      IF YOU FIND THAT THE KILLING WAS PRECEDED AND ACCOMPANIED
BY A CLEAR, DELIBERATE INTENT ON THE PART THE DEFENDANT TO KILL,
WHICH WAS THE RESULT OF DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATED, SO THAT IT
MUST HAVE BEEN FORMED UPON PREEXISTING REFLECTION AND NOT UNDER A
SUDDEN HEAT OF PASSION OR OTHER CONDITION PRECLUDING THE IDEA OF
DELIBERATION, IT IS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE.

      THE LAW DOES NOT UNDERTAKE TO MEASURE IN UNITS OF TIME THE
LENGTH OF THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE THOUGHT MUST BE PONDERED
BEFORE IT CAN RIPEN INTO AN INTENT TO KILL WHICH IS TRULY
DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED. THE TIME WILL VARY WITH DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS AND UNDER VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES.
                THE TRUE TEST IS NOT THE DURATION OF TIME, BUT
RATHER THE EXTENT OF THE REFLECTION. A COLD, CALCULATED JUDGMENT
AND DECISION MAY BE ARRIVED AT IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, BUT A
MERE UNCONSIDERED AND RASH IMPULSE, EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDE AN
INTENT TO KILL, IS NOT SUCH DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION AS
WILL FIX AN UNLAWFUL KILLING AS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE.
                TO CONSTITUTE A DELIBERATE AND PREMEDITATED
KILLING, THE SLAYER MUST WEIGH AND CONSIDER THE QUESTION OF
KILLING AND THE REASONS FOR AND AGAINST SUCH A CHOICE AND, HAVING
IN MIND THE CONSEQUENCES, HE DECIDES TO AND DOES KILL.

      MURDER OF THE SECOND DEGREE IS THE UNLAWFUL KILLING OF A
HUMAN BEING WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT WHERE THERE IS MANIFESTED AN
INTENTION UNLAWFULLY TO KILL A HUMAN BEING BUT THE EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH DELIBERATION AND PREMEDITATION.

      MURDER IS CLASSIFIED INTO TWO DEGREES, AND IF YOU SHOULD
FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF MURDER, YOU MUST DETERMINE AND STATE
IN YOUR VERDICT WHETHER YOU FIND THE MURDER TO BE OF THE FIRST OR
SECOND DEGREE.

      IF YOU ARE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
CRIME OF MURDER HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT, BUT YOU HAVE
A REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER SUCH A MURDER WAS MURDER OF THE FIRST
OR OF THE SECOND DEGREE, YOU MUST GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE BENEFIT
OF THE DOUBT AND RETURN A VERDICT FIXING THE MURDER AS THE SECOND
DEGREE.

      BEFORE YOU MAY RETURN A VERDICT IN THIS CASE, YOU MUST ALSO
AGREE UNANIMOUSLY NOT ONLY AS TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY
OR NOT GUILTY, BUT ALSO, IF YOU SHOULD FIND HIM GUILTY OF AN
UNLAWFUL KILLING, YOU MUST AGREE UNANIMOUSLY AS TO WHETHER HE IS
GUILTY OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE OR MURDER OF THE SECOND
DEGREE.

      IF YOU FIND THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE GUILTY OF MURDER OF
THE FIRST DEGREE, YOU MUST THEN DETERMINE THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE, -- WHETHER THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS
TRUE OR NOT TRUE:
                THE DEFENDANT HAS IN THIS CASE BEEN CONVICTED OF
AT LEAST ONE CRIME OF MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE AND ONE OR MORE
CRIMES OF MURDER IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE.
                THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE
TRUTH OF A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT
AS TO WHETHER A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS TRUE, YOU MUST FIND IT TO
BE NOT TRUE.
                IN ORDER TO FIND A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE ALLEGED
IN THIS CASE TO BE TRUE OR UNTRUE, YOU MUST AGREE UNANIMOUSLY.
      YOU WILL STATE IN YOUR FINDING -- EXCUSE ME.
                YOU WILL STATE YOUR SPECIAL FINDING AS TO WHETHER
THIS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS OR IS NOT TRUE ON THE FORM THAT WILL
BE SUPPLIED TO YOU.

      TO FIND THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, REFERRED TO IN THESE
INSTRUCTIONS AS MULTIPLE MURDER CONVICTIONS, IS TRUE, IT MUST BE
PROVED:
      THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS IN THIS CASE BEEN CONVICTED OF AT
LEAST ONE CRIME OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE AND ONE OR MORE
CRIMES OF MURDER IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE.

      YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO FIND A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE
ALLEGED IN THIS CASE TO BE TRUE BASED UPON CIRCUMSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE UNLESS THE PROVED CIRCUMSTANCE IS NOT ONLY. ONE.
CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY THAT A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE IS TRUE,
BUT TWO. CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH ANY OTHER RATIONAL CONCLUSION.
      FURTHER, EACH FACT WHICH IS ESSENTIAL TO COMPLETE A SET OF
CIRCUMSTANCES NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF A SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCE MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
                IN OTHER WORDS, BEFORE AN INFERENCE ESSENTIAL TO
ESTABLISH A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE MAY BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN PROVED
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, EACH FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCE UPON WHICH
SUCH INFERENCE NECESSARILY RESTS MUST BE PROVED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT.
                ALSO, IF THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS
SUSCEPTIBLE OF TWO REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS, ONE OF WHICH
POINTS TO THE TRUTH OF A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE OTHER TO
ITS UNTRUTH, YOU MUST ADOPT THAT INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO
ITS UNTRUTH, AND REJECT THE INTERPRETATION WHICH POINTS TO ITS
TRUTH.
                IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH
EVIDENCE APPEARS TO YOU TO BE REASONABLE AND THE OTHER
INTERPRETATION TO BE UNREASONABLE, YOU MUST ACCEPT THE REASONABLE
INTERPRETATION AND REJECT THE UNREASONABLE.

      EACH COUNT CHARGES A DISTINCT CRIME. YOU MUST DECIDE EACH
COUNT SEPARATELY. THE DEFENDANT MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OR NOT
GUILTY OF EITHER/OR BOTH OF THE CRIMES CHARGED. YOUR FINDING AS
TO EACH COUNT MUST BE STATED IN A SEPARATE VERDICT FORM.

      IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE
DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED, YOU MAY, NEVERTHELESS,
CONVICT HIM OF ANY LESSER CRIME IF YOU ARE CONVINCED BEYOND A
REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF SUCH LESSER
CRIME.

      THE CRIME OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER IS A LESSER TO THAT OF
FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
      THUS YOU ARE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY
OR NOT GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER AS CHARGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2
OR OF ANY LESSER CRIME. IN DOING SO, YOU HAVE DISCRETION TO
CHOOSE THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU EVALUATE EACH CRIME AND CONSIDER
THE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO IT. YOU MAY FIND IT PRODUCTIVE TO
CONSIDER AND REACH TENTATIVE CONCLUSION ON ALL CHARGES AND LESSER
CRIMES BEFORE REACHING ANY FINAL VERDICTS. HOWEVER, THE COURT
CANNOT ACCEPT A GUILTY VERDICT ON A LESSER CRIME UNLESS YOU HAVE
UNANIMOUSLY FOUND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE GREATER CRIME.

      IT IS ALLEGED IN COUNTS 1 AND 2 THAT IN THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME CHARGED, THE DEFENDANT PERSONALLY USED A DEADLY OR
DANGEROUS WEAPON.
      IF YOU FIND SUCH DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THUS CHARGED
OR A LESSER INCLUDED CRIME, YOU MUST DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH DEFENDANT PERSONALLY USED A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON IN
THE COMMISSION OF SUCH CRIME.
                A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON MEANS ANY WEAPON,
INSTRUMENT OR OBJECT THAT IS CAPABLE OF BEING USED TO INFLICT
GREAT BODILY INJURY OR DEATH.
                THE TERM "USED A DEADLY OR DANGEROUS WEAPON," AS
USED IN THIS INSTRUCTION, MEANS TO DISPLAY SUCH WEAPON IN AN
INTENTIONALLY MENACING MANNER OR INTENTIONALLY TO STRIKE OR HIT A
HUMAN BEING WITH IT.
                THE PROSECUTION HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE
TRUTH OF THIS ALLEGATION. IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT WHETHER
-- IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT IT IS TRUE, YOU MUST FIND
IT TO BE NOT TRUE.
      YOU WILL INCLUDE A SPECIAL FINDING ON THAT QUESTION IN YOUR
VERDICT USING A FORM THAT WILL BE SUPPLIED TO YOU FOR THAT
PURPOSE.

      THE PURPOSE OF THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS IS TO PROVIDE YOU
WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW SO THAT YOU MAY ARRIVE AT A JUST AND
LAWFUL VERDICT. WHETHER SOME INSTRUCTIONS APPLY WILL DEPEND UPON
WHAT YOU FIND TO BE THE FACTS. DISREGARD ANY INSTRUCTION WHICH
APPLIES TO FACTS DETERMINED BY YOU NOT TO EXIST. DO NOT CONCLUDE
THAT BECAUSE AN INSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT THE COURT IS
EXPRESSING ANY OPINION AS TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

            ALL RIGHT.
            LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS CONCLUDES THE
INSTRUCTIONS THAT I AM GOING TO GIVE TO YOU PRIOR TO THE
ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS.
            AS I INDICATED TO YOU, WE WILL STAND IN RECESS UNTIL
TUESDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER THE 26TH, TO BEGIN AT NINE O'CLOCK
WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ATTORNEYS.
            IT IS AN INTERESTING DATE BECAUSE IF YOU WILL
RECOLLECT, THOSE OF YOU WHO CAME TO US IN THE FIRST BATCH OF JURY
SELECTION, WE ACTUALLY STARTED JURY SELECTION ON SEPTEMBER 26,
1994, AND I SEE SOME PEOPLE RECOLLECT THAT DATE.
            ALL RIGHT.
            AT THIS POINT YOU MUST REMEMBER ALL MY ADMONITIONS TO
YOU.
            DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE AMONG YOURSELVES, DO NOT
FORM ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE CASE, DO NOT CONDUCT ANY
DELIBERATIONS UNTIL THE MATTER HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, DO NOT
ALLOW ANYBODY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE.
            ALL RIGHT.
            AS FAR AS THE JURY IS CONCERNED, WE WILL STAND IN
RECESS.