. Has EVERYBODY RECEIVED A COPY OF DRAFT NUMBER THREE OF THE PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS? Yes.? Yes, YOUR HONOR. AND STATE OBJECTIONS OR REQUESTS JUDGE NO OBJECTION.. I KNOW THE DEFENSE HAS ASKED THAT THE DEFENSE BE READ WHICH IS APPLICABLE.. If THEYRE ASKING FOR THAT OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, WE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT REQUEST. ALL RIGHT.. What ABOUT THAT? Well, JUDGE. WEVE, HAD YOU KNOW. Weve ALL TALKED ABOUT THINGS OFF THE RECORD IN TERMS OF OUR JURY CONFERENCE.. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT. I UNDERSTAND WERE TRYING TO STREAM LINE. It. WERE TRYING TO NOT BORE THE JURY WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS.. I THINK THAT IS AND IF IM WRONG, IM WRONG. I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES.. I INACQUIRED ON THE MESSAGE. Last NIGHT.. Is ANYBODY FAMILIAR WITH AUTHORITY ON THE SUBJECT THAT REQUIRES THAT THAT MAKES, I GUESS ILL ARGUE WITH YOU AND THEN HEAR THE REST OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.? You KNOW ATTENTION SPAN. You SPEAK TO JURIES ALL THE TIME AND WHEN YOU START REPEATING YOURSELF, YOU LOSE YOUR AUDIENCE MIGHTY. Fast. THEYVE GOT A LOT TO HEAR TODAY FROM ME AND FROM YOU, LAWYERS, AND I, IF I AM READING THE SELF DEFENSE INSTRUCTIONS FIVE TIMES, I WOULD EXPECT TO LOSE THE AUDIENCE RATHER RAPIDLY., AND THIS IS JUST SO TYPICAL OF LAWYERS WHO ARE. This HAS ALWAYS DONE IT THIS WAY, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR YEARS I HAVE, I HAVE TAKEN OUT COMMON ELEMENTS OF THINGS AND PUT THEM IN SEPARATE AREAS OF THE INSTRUCTIONS, AND ONCE THEY LEARN WHAT THE TERM INTENT TO KILL MEANS.

I DONT HAVE TO DEFINE IT EVERY SINGLE TIME. It COMES UP. AND IVE, NEVER GOTTEN. Even TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE HASNT EVEN BEEN AN APPEAL ON IT.. My JOB HERE IS TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE JURY. SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LAW PROVIDES, AND I THINK THAT CAN BE DONE BETTER BRIEFLY AND CONCISELY THAN BY REPEATING THE SAME OLD STUFF OVER AND OVER AGAIN, BUT GIVEN THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES, IF THATS YOUR Position WELL DO IT, BUT TO ME ITS A MONUMENTAL WASTE OF TIME AND IT MAY END UP HAVING A NEGATIVE EFFECT. BUT IM NOT GOING TO MESS AROUND WITH A CASE OF THIS MAGNITUDE OVER TWO WEEKS TO TRY.. So IF YOU THINK THAT THE RISKS EVERYTHING TO PROCEED, AS I SUGGESTED THEN WELL GO WITH THE LONG FORMS, EVERY TIME. IM GOING TO HAVE TO COUNT ON YOU TO MAKE TIMELY OBJECTION. If YOU FEEL THAT IM LEAVING SOMETHING OUT ON A PARTICULAR COUNT, BECAUSE IVE PREPARED IT IN THE 36 PAGES OF INSTRUCTIONS, IVE PREPARED THEM USING A BRIEF FORM WITHOUT THERES ALREADY PLENTY OF REPEATING GOING ON. But IF I HAVE TO DO IT LONGER, YOURE GOING TO HAVE TO OBJECT PHI IF YOU THINK IM MISSING SOMETHING OR ITS GOING TO BE A WAIVER JUST SO YOURE FOREWARNED., YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CON TESTIMONY. Painous OBJECTION.! Is THAT CLEAR, IT IS SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND THE ONLY ONE THAT YOU DONT HAVE IT IN THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT WAS COUNT FIVE.

, THERES, A LESSER INCLUDED, OFFENSE OF RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY. YEAH IM SORRY. ON THAT ONE I DO THINK WELL. No, I DIDNT PUT IT IN THERE THE FINAL SENTENCE. It SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE SATISFIED, YOABD, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE, BUT ILL TRY TO SQUEEZE THE CONTENT IN THERE AS WELL., AND I GUESS IM NOT SURE THAT I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT THAT ILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT It., OF COURSE, THE STATE – IF I READ THE SELF DEFENSE PORTIONS IN THEN, THEY WANT ME TO REPEAT EVERY TIME RETREAT, IMPROVE OCCASION WHICH YOU HAVE OPPOSED SO THEYRE GOING TO HEAR THAT AGAIN. THEY DONT WANT THAT ANYMORE.. They DONT WANT THAT ANYMORE. I WILL WITHDRAW THAT REQUEST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF TIME. OKAY.. I THINK ILL GO BACK TO BED.. Laughter OKAY. BY THE END COUNTS. Two AND THREE. I GAVE SPECIAL INSTRUCTION ONLY WITH RESPECT TO MR. MCGINNIS, BECAUSE THE LAW IS DIFFERENT WITH RESPECT TO HIM AND WELL GET TO THAT. OKAY. GREAT., BUT I DIDNT REREAD IT WITH RESPECT TO THE COUNT INVOLVING MR. GROSSKREUTZ IS THE ONE YOUVE DONE ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE WITH SELF Defense ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE WITH SELF DEFENSE, BUT THE WAY I READ IT AND IF IM READING IT WRONG, CORRECT ME ON PAGE 27 OF THE FINAL INSTRUCTIONS, IT SIMPLY SAYS HERE ARE THE ELEMENTS I DIDNT SEE. Self DEFENSE MENTIONED IN THERE. YOURE RIGHT., YOURE RIGHT., BECAUSE, AS I DID NOW, LET ME SAY ON COUNTS THE ATTEMPT, MURDER AND THE MURDER ON THOSE THATS THE PATTERN INSTRUCTION.

. If I HAD MY WAY, I THINK THATS OVERLY PRO VOWS AND WE DIDNT USED TO DO IT THAT WAY AND THEN THEY CAME UP WITH THIS AND I FOLLOWED IT.. I FOLLOWED IT, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE BETTER STATED, BUT I FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE OF THE INSTRUCTION COMMITTEE BECAUSE THERES MORE OF THEM THAN THERE IS ME AND THEYRE VERY PEOPLE., BUT THEN ON COUNT THREE, I GAVE A SPECIAL INSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION WITH MR. Mcginnis BUT I DIDNT ON COUNT TWO OR COUNT FIVE, BECAUSE I RELIED UPON THE GENERAL PRINCIPALS OF SELF DEFENSE ON WHICH I INSTRUCTED THEM.. So IF YOU WANT ME TO DO IT ON FIVE, I NEED IT DO IT ON TWO. THATS ON TWO ALSO. AND THATS RIGHT AFTER THEYVE JUST HEARD IT.. So ALL RIGHT., MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE INSTRUCTION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SELF DEFENSE IS AN ISSUE FOR. First DEGREE ATTEMPT AND SECOND DEGREE ATTEMPT., I DONT KNOW IF THATS, BECAUSE FROM THE PATTERN INSTRUCTION, I UNDERSTAND YOUR THINKING BECAUSE I DIDNT DISCUSS IT IN THE PORTION ON RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT, THEN THAT THEYRE GOING TO THINK ITS NOT PART OF IT, BUT THE LAST SENTENCE TELLS THEM And IF YOU ARE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT WAS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE, YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY.. Did YOU SEE THAT UNDER THE RECKLESS ENDANGERING SAFETY? Is THAT WHAT YOU ARE MAKING YEAH THATS ON THE YEAH.

EXCUSE? Me. IM READING HERE., YOU KNOW YOURE RIGHT.. Maybe I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WANTED. DID YOU WANT THE WHOLE SELF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION DISCUSSED AGAIN OR JUST THE CLAUSE AND IF YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED, YOABD THAT THE DEFENDANT, OR THAT I SHOULD SAY, IS ALL THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF ENDANGERING SAFETY OF THE FIRST DEGREE. Have BEEN PROVED AND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE, YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.. I THINK THATS, FINE. As LONG AS THE SELF DEFENSE IS AN OPTION. YOURE, RIGHT. ALL RIGHT., I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOUR E MAIL SAID.. If YOU ARE NOT SATISFIED, YOABD THERES MORE MISSING THERE THAN THAT. DID YOU KNOW THAT THERES NOT A CLAUSE ABOUT IF YOU ARE SATISFIED.? If YOU ARE NOT SO SATISFIED, THEN YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY.. Is THAT SATISFACTORY, OKAY. WHATS? Next, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS. DEFENSE, SO JUDGE. This IS MORE FOR THE RECORD YOUVE ALREADY MADE. I THINK PRELIMINARY YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THE RICHIE MCGINNIS INSTRUCTION, WHICH IS ON PAGE 8 AND 9.. The POSITION THAT I HAD TAKEN WAS ONE OF THE LINES SAYS, BUT THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE AS TO RICHARD MCGINNIS.. After THAT, THERES DISCUSSION ABOUT SELF DEFENSE AND WHAT THAT MEANS. ON PAGE 9 THERES A SENTENCE THAT SAYS IF THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTING LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE, HIS CONDUCT DID NOT CREATE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO ANOTHER.

. I HAD TOLD YOU IN AN E MAIL THAT ALL THE PARTIES WERE INVOLVED AND THAT I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS INCONGRUENCE AND IN TERMS OF HOW THAT READS, I KNOW THE COURT DISAGREES, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ON THERE. BECAUSE I DO Think ITS CONFUSING, HOWEVER, I KNOW ITS THE PATTERN: INSTRUCTION. IM, NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU THAT IT IS CONFUSING, BUT ITS A STATEMENT OF THE LAW.. Mr. MCGINNIS DOES NOT HAVE A SELF DEFENSE STATUS BECAUSE HES THE DEFENDANT HAS NO RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE TO ANY HARM, CAUSED AND THATS. What THE INSTRUCTION IS TELLING THE JURY, BUT IF HE WAS ACTING LAWFUL IN SELF DEFENSE WITH RESPECT TO MR. ROSENBAUM, THEN IT KILLS. One OF THE ELEMENTS I THINK IM READING THAT RIGHT. IT GIVES THEM AN ABSOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ELEMENT OF WHAT IS THE PRECISE ELEMENT OF ITS UNREASONABLE, SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DEATH. It SAYS THAT JURY CANT FIND IT. IF THEY CANT FIND THAT THEY CANT FIND ONE OF THE ELEMENTS, SO THEY HAVE TO FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY., AS IT RELATES TO JOSEPH ROSENBAUM.. Do YOU WANT THAT PUT IN? I THINK THAT MAKES IT CLEAR.. Where DO YOU WANT IT PUT IN? Where DID YOU SAY YEAH. ON PAGE NINE, IT WOULD BE THE SO THERES CHEREMMING, WHETHER REASONABLE, I THINK ITS, THE THIRD OR FOURTH TO LAST SENTENCE, THE DEFENDANT ACTINGLY IN SELF DEFENSE.. With RESPECT TO JOSEPH ROSENBAUM., HIS CONDUCT DID NOT CREATE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO RICHARD MCGINNIS.

YEAH. ILL DO THAT. ANY OBJECTION NO. OKAY WHATS. Next, ON PAGE 34, TWO OF THE WITNESSES, ONE OF THE WITNESSES, HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME. Mr. GROSSKREUTZ HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME AND MR. SMITH HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF A CRIME.. So I THINK IF YOU JUST SAY, MULTIPLE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY.. But WHAT PAGE IS THAT ON IM SORRY. 34.? We ARE ASKING FOR THE DO. You WANT THE WORD SOME INSTEAD OF ONE. OR MULTIPLE.. How MANY WAS IT TWO THAT I RECALL. THERE ACTUALLY WERE? Well, I DONT THINK YOU ASKED THERE WAS ANOTHER WITNESS WITH CONVICTIONS, BUT I DONT BELIEVE THE QUESTION WAS ASKED.. What WAS THE ANSWER ILL PUT DOWN? Two THEN. AND THEN THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A CAUTIONY INSTRUCTION REGARDING MR. ARMSTRONG. YEAH. I REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THAT. AND WE HAD PROPOSED THE INSTRUCTION TO THE COURT, WHICH I THINK WE TOOK OFF OF 245 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH.. So WE ARE ASKING BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY THAT THE COURT INSTRUCT WITH THAT MODIFIED 245 INSTRUCTION AS IT RELATES TO MR. ARMSTRONG.. Did YOU WANT TO BE HEARD? Well, I WOULD STAND BY WHAT I INDICATED OVER THE WEEKEND IN MY E MAIL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT I AM LOOKING UP. The SPECIFIC INSTRUCTION. DID YOU SAY: 245, TESTIMONY OF ACCOMPLICES. YEAH THATS A GOOD MODEL FOR IT. THATS. What I HAD PLANNED ON USING IF I HAD DRAFTED THAT MYSELF. JUDGE, I JUST DONT, THINK ITS NECESSARY.

. The EVIDENCE WAS RECEIVED.. The POINTS THAT THE DEFENSE WANTED TO GET INTO WERE MADE ON CROSS EXAMINATION.. Giving ANY KIND OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE TELLING THE FACT FINDERS HOW TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE.. I PROPOSE A DIFFERENT OR SOME DIFFERENT WORDING.. You SHOULD NOT BASEVERDICT OF GUILTY UPON IT ALONE, LESS AFTER CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE SATISFIED BY A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY IS COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE ITS APPROPRIATE, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ACCOMPLICES, BUT CERTAINLY NOT WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE PICTURE OUT OF 100, SOME ODD EXHIBITS, SO I DONT BELIEVE ITS APPROPRIATE.. I DONT BELIEVE ITS NECESSARY. AGAIN. I BELIEVE THAT THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT PIXELS AND ZOOMING ARE THAT THEY USE A VERY SIMILAR SOFTWARE PROGRAM WITH ZOOMING.. There WAS NO OBJECTION., I UNDERSTAND. THERES NO BASIS FOR AN OBJECTION AND THEY KNOW THAT., I DONT KNOW THAT.. Maybe THEY DO., I DONT KNOW.. I CANT READ THEIR MINDS.. This IS A FORENSICALLY, SOUND PROGRAM USED BY A FORENSIC ANALYST WHO IS TRAINED. This IMAGE IS PEER REVIEWED. IF THEY WANT TO DISCUSS THE PRO PROPRIETARY ALGORITHMS AND HOW AN ANALYST WOULD NOT KNOW CONTAINED IN THE SOFTWARE THAT THEY ARE USING. That IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD. They CAN GO AHEAD AND ARGUE THAT, BUT TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION THAT TELLS THE JURY ESSENTIALLY TO IGNORE THIS EVIDENCE. Unless EVERYTHING ELSE PROVES IT IS WAY TOO FAR.. Well, THIS WHOLE BUSINESS ABOUT WELL, I DONT WANT TO SAY THE WHOLE BUSINESS, BUT THE DOBBER RULE IS THE PRODUCT OF THE ABUSE OF SO CALLED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

By ATTORNEYS. THERE WERE COMPANIES, PENSION FUNDS. Individuals WERE BANKRUPTED BECAUSE OF LEGAL DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SO CALLED SCIENCE, WHICH WAS LATER SHOWN TO BE GARBAGE.. So WHEN YOU COME IN HERE – AND YOU TELL ME WELL, THIS IS WHAT THEY RELIED ON. I THINK THATS FINE, EXCEPT WHEN MY COMMON SENSE TELLS ME WELL WAIT A MINUTE WHATS HAPPENING HERE WHEN YOU GET AN IMAGE THAT IS CONSISTENT OF JUST ILL SAY IT AGAIN. 2500 PIXELS AND YOU BLOW IT UP TO 25000 OR 250000, AND YOU DONT REALLY KNOW WHAT Fills THE VACANT SPACE THATS A STRUGGLE FOR ME, AND THIS IS NOT BEING USED TO DECIDE WHICH CAMERA IM GOING TO BUY OR WHICH PHONE IM GOING TO BUY WHEN IM AT THE STORE.. This IS BEING USED TO DECIDE ABOUT WHETHER SOMEONE IS INNOCENT OR GUILTY OF A CRIME, SO THATS, WHY I WAS WHEN THE WITNESS ANSWERED HE DIDNT KNOW AND THE ONLY REASON I LEFT HERE AND I TROUBLED ABOUT IT AND IN THE END I DECIDED WELL WAIT. A MINUTE. WE ALLOW THIS KIND OF THING TO HAPPEN IN DWI CASES WHERE THE OFFICER IS ASKED. Well, HOW DOES THE MACHINE WORK? I DONT KNOW IM JUST TRAINED HOW TO OPERATE IT., BUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. There. THAT HAS ALREADY PASSED JUDICIAL SCRUTINY AND THIS METHOD HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY DETERMINED TO BE ACCURATE.. Has THAT BEEN DONE IN THIS I DONT KNOW., SO THAT WAS SO. That WAS WHEN I WAS THINKING WELL, MAYBE I SHOULD GIVE A CAUTIONY INSTRUCTION.

. I ULTIMATELY, YOU CONVINCED ME IN OUR EXCHANGES THAT I DONT WANT TO BE MEDDLING AND COMMENTING ON THE EVIDENCE.. I WILL TELL YOU THIS., ASSUMING THAT THERES A CONVICTION, ONE OR MORE, ASSUMING THAT THE OTHER MOTIONS DONT CONTAMINATE THE WHATEVER OUTCOME THERE IS. It COMES OUT AT SOME TIME THAT THE METHOD USED PRODUCES UNRELIABLE RESULTS.. This IS GOING TO FALL LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS., BECAUSE YOURE BASING THIS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT SEGMENT OF THE EVIDENCE ON SOMETHING THAT IM REALLY QUEASY ABOUT.. But AS I SAID WHEN I LEFT HERE FRIDAY, THIS IS THE JURYS CASE., ITS NOT MINE. AND IM GOING TO LET THEM DECIDE.. They HAVE YOUR PHOTOGRAPHS AND YOUR VIDEO AND THEYVE GOT THE TESTIMONY OF THE PERSON WHO WAS WORKED WITH. Who KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT THIS STUFF THAN I DO SO? Ive DECIDED TO LEAVE IT ALONE, SO IM NOT GOING TO GIVE AN INSTRUCTION ON THAT, BUT IVE MADE MY RECORD ON THE HIGH RISK THAT I THINK IT PRESENTS FOR THE CASE. OKAY. WHATS. Next, THE TWO LAST THINGS THE COURT HAD MODIFIED COUNT SIX., I DID.. So THE THIRD ELEMENT WAS THE DANGEROUS WEAPON WAS A RIFLE THAT HAD A BARREL LENGTH OF LESS THAN 26 INCHES.. We HAVE PULLED THE TRANSCRIPT TALKED AND LOOKED AT IT. DETECTIVE WAS ASKED IF THIS WAS A SHORT BARRELED RIFLE HE HAD ANSWERED. No, HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT IT WAS. THATS. The ONLY INFORMATION REGARDING THAT. WAS THE GUN OFFERED AS AN EXHIBIT.

YES.. That IS EVIDENCE. CORRECT. ENOUGH IN ITSELF.. The JURY CAN MEASURE IT. OKAY., FAIR ENOUGH.. I JUST DIDNT YEAH. THE WAY THAT I LOOKED AT IT. There WAS NO OTHER INFORMATION THAT A REASONABLE JURY CAN BELIEVE THAT COUNT THREE HAS BEEN MET.. So WHAT ARE YOU TELLING ME. THAT IM ASKING THAT YOU TAKE IT FROM THEM. YOURE ASKING ME TO DISMISS THE CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROVE FOR COUNT SIX. JUDGE THERE HAVE BEEN MANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS COUNT. IM NOT GOING TO REHASH EVERYTHING.. The STATE DISAGREES WITH THE INTERPRETATION THE COURT HAS ESTABLISHED.. We DO NOT BELIEVE THIS JURY INSTRUCTION IS APPROPRIATE.. We DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE EXCEPTION OR DEFENSE OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT WAS PROPERLY RAISED.. We ARGUED ABOUT ALL OF THAT ON FRIDAY. IM NOT GOING TO REHASH IT.. I BELIEVE IT SHOULD GO TO THE JURY AND THE JURY BELIEVES THAT IT WAS PROVEN NOT PROVEN YOABD. They CAN RETURN A VERDICT ON THAT, BUT STATE THE STATE HAS OBJECTED ALL ALONG OR HAS GIVEN ITS VERSION ALL ALONG.. We STAND BY THAT VERSION.. I BELIEVE THAT THIS JURY INSTRUCTION, ESSENTIALLY THE ENTIRE STATUTE. WEVE GONE OVER THAT BEFORE SO I BELIEVE IT SHOULD GO TO THE JURY.. We WOULD LIKE THE STANDARD INSTRUCTION.. Clearly THE COURTS NOT GOING TO DO THAT. WELL.. Up UNTIL NOW, THE MOTIONS WERE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, AND YOU FILED A VERY NICE BRIEF, WHICH YOU ALL EXPLAINED WHAT THE LAW IS AND, OF COURSE WE WERE DEALING WITH WHAT THE COMPLAINT STATED AND WHETHER THE COMPLAINT STATED SUFFICIENT FACTS TO BRING THE CASE TO Court AND THE COURT IS CONFINED ON THAT KIND OF A MOTION TO THE TO WHATS IN THE COMPLAINT AND WHETHER IT MEETS THE LAW AND, AS YOU POINTED OUT, THESE DEFENSIVE ARE AFFIRMATIVE AND THE DA DOESNT HAVE TO COMPLETE THEM SO THATS.

Why ULTIMATELY DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MIGHTY CLEAR THAT I HAD BIG PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUTE TO OPPOSE ABOUT THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THERE ALWAYS WAS ACCESS TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ALL ALONG HERE.. Well, I GUESS THATS NOT FAIR FOR ME TO SAY BECAUSE SO SHAME ON ME, BUT I ULTIMATELY READ THE STATUTE AND HAVE EVEN WHEN I RULED ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS. It WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE STATUTE WAS AS INTERPRETED BY THE DEFENSE, AND BUT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO GRANT. The MOTION TO DISMISS. IS THE FIREARM HERE NOW YES. WE CAN EITHER MEASURE IT OR YOU CAN STIPULATE THAT IT IS. It DOES NOT MEET. What IVE STATED ARE THE REQUIREMENTS. AND IF IT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE, IF IT IS, IF THE BARREL LENGTH IS LESS THAN 16 INCHES OR AN OVERALL LENGTH, LESS THAN 26 INCHES THEN ILL DENY THE MOTION. If IT DOES NOT MEET THOSE SPECIFICATIONS, THEN THE DEFENSE MOTION WILL BE GRANTED.. We ARE NOT DISPUTING THAT THE BARREL THAT THE BARREL LENGTH IS APPROPRIATE.. Is IT LEGAL? It IS NOT A SHORT BARREL, SHOTGUN OR SHORT BARRELED, RIFLE YES., EITHER BY BARREL OR OVERALL LENGTH. CORRECT.. All RIGHT. AND COUNT SIX IS DISMISSED.. On NOVEMBER 8, WE HAD ADDRESSED A MOTION TO A MOTION FOR MISTRIAL WITH PRIVILEGE.. The COURT HAD TAKEN THAT UNDER ADVISEMENT.. What I INFORM THE COURT WAS, SO I HAVE FILED SOMETHING IN WRITING ON THAT.

. I KNOW THE COURT LIKELY HASNT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.. I DONT KNOW I SEE IT. OKAY. IM, ASSUMING THAT WERE GOING TO GO OBVIOUSLY THROUGH CLOSING ARGUMENTS TODAY, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COURT WAS AWARE THAT IT HAD BEEN FILED AND AT SOME POINT HAVE THE COURT MAKE A FINAL RULING ON IT. Just FOR THE RECORD. I WILL. OKAY., IF NECESSARY. THE OKAY. CAME IN THIS MORNING, OKAY. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE JUDGE. Were YOU EVER ABLE TO GET THE DEFENDANTS INTERVIEW LINK THAT WE SENT TO PLAY THE WASHINGTON POST STORY. I DID RECEIVE THAT. I DID RECEIVE. That. RELATES TO THE MOTION THATS. The REASON WHY I ASK. THE DEFENSE MOTION. It RELATES TO THAT., WELL IM NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THE MOTION NOW.. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.. I DID RECEIVE IT. OKAY. OKAY.. Anything ELSE RIGHT NOW JUDGE. Are YOU DONE? I AM. THE ONLY THING JUDGE IN OUR ARGUMENTS. We WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE THAT POINTING A LOADED AR15 AT SOMEONE WITHOUT REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION WOULD BE A CRIMINAL ACT WITHOUT CITING THE STATUTE, BUT THAT POINTING UNDER 941.20 IS A CRIME.. We WOULD LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT, AND WE JUST WANTED TO PREVIEW THAT SO, IF THERES OBJECTION WE CAN HANDLE IT NOW. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO RESPOND? We WOULD OBJECT.. This IS ONCE GENRE LYING ON THE EXHIBIT THAT IS SO FAR OUT OF FOCUS AND THERES BEEN NOTHING IN THE RECORD.

When I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE DETECTIVE HOWARD REGARDING STRONG ARM ROBBERY, I ASKED ABOUT STRONG ARM ROBBERY WHILE MASKED., I ASKED ABOUT IT. ITS IN THE RECORD.. You KNOW I STRUGGLE WITH THAT AND I WILL WELL ILL LEAVE THAT.. How DO WE KNOW IT WAS POINTED AT OR TOWARD MR. OR MRS. OR WHOM EVER YOU HAVE A THEORY THAT IT WAS POINTED IN THAT DIRECTION? I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THE STATUTE IS PRETTY EXPLICIT AND IM, NOT SURE THAT THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE ITS JUST WELL NOT JUST ESPECIALLY, BUT IN PART BECAUSE ITS JUST A REGULAR PHOTOGRAPH., ITS NOT MULTI DIMENSIONAL. IT DOESNT, SHOW THAT EXACT AREA WHICH THE. Judge, EVEN IF YOU SEE THE FIREARM, THE PHOTOGRAPH IS PERHAPS THE FIFTH OR SIXTH MOST PIECE OF EVIDENCE ON THIS TOPIC. MOST. What FIFTH OR SIXTH MOST RELEVANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE ON THIS TOPIC. WE HAVE TESTIMONY.. We HAVE VIDEOS. IM NOT GOING TO GO OVER THAT AGAIN.. The DEFENSE SUBMITTED THEIR OWN EXHIBIT OF THE FBI, VIDEO, WITH THIS DENOTED AS BEING THE ONLY TWO THAT WERE ON THAT SIDE OF THE DURA MAX. Mr. Z STARTS OUT BY THE ONE OF THE WINDOWS OF THE DURA MAX, I GUESS WOULD BE THE REAR PASSENGER SIDE WINDOW AND SO THERES NO REAL DISPUTE THAT THEY ARE IN THAT AREA. And THAT IS WHERE WE ARGUE THAT HE IS POINTING THE WEAPON. ITS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE IF HES, POINTING AT HIM OR NOT.

. It IS NOT FOR THE JURY TO SPECULATE. LETS. Look AT THE STATUTE. THATS A GOOD PLACE TO START. 941 POINT. 20. YEAH., AND THAT BRINGS UP A SEPARATE ISSUE. I SUPPOSE THAT WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ROSENBAUM ASSUMING THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE STATUTE. THATS. The VERY THEORY THAT THE STATE HAS PROCEEDED ON IN THE FIRST PLACE IS THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS A VEGETABLE LANTIE WHO WAS GETTING HIMSELF INVOLVED IN SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT HIS CONCERN. And NOW YOU ARE TELLING ME THAT WOULD JUSTIFY MR. ROSENBAUMS ACTIONS. Im KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH THAT TOO.. What DOES THE JURY DO WITH THAT? I DONT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE COURTS. Question. PARDON ME. He ALSO POINTED THE WEAPON AT MR. ROSENBAUM BEFORE THE SHOOTING., WHILE HES BEING PURSUED. He POINTS IT AT MR. ROSENBAUM. THERES, NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT. RIGHT. HES BEING CHASED BY HIM.. Pardon ME HES BEING CHASED BY HIM.. It USED TO BE POINTS OR AIMS AT A FIREARM OR ANOTHER. IM, NOT SEEING THAT EXACT LANGUAGE ANYMORE, BUT IM NOT SEEING IT HERE. On THE STATUTE THAT THERE WOULD BE A BROAD ENOUGH SWEEP TO CAPTURE SOME WRONGFULNESS IN JUST POINTING THE FIREARM TOWARDS THE WEST, WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS POINTED SPECIFICALLY AT OR TOWARDS ANOTHER., WHAT AM I MISSING? The OPERATION OR HANDLING OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON. COULD YOU. ONE ENDANGERS ANOTHER SAFETY BY HANDLING OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON. We WOULD ARGUE THAT IT IS IF THE COURT FEELS OTHERWISE WE SIMPLY TALK ABOUT IT AND NOT.

. Where WAS THE FIREARM, YOU SAY AT THE ZS., I DIDNT HEAR THEM COME IN HERE AND SAY THAT., WHO SAID IT LOOKING AT THE VIDEO THERES THATS, WHO IS OVER THERE. BEG YOUR PARDON LOOKING AT VIDEOS AND INDICATE THOSE ARE THE ONES WHO ARE OVER THERE. That WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE. IM, NOT SAYING IT DIDNT HAPPEN. IM SAYING I DONT THINK I CAN GIVE AN INSTRUCTION TO THE JURY TELLING THEM. You KNOW SOMETHING WHEN I DONT SEE THIS STATUTORY. INSTRUCTION. We ARE CLOSING IN OUR ARGUMENTS. We WANTED TO SAY THAT.. I THINK IT WOULD BE OKAY FOR YOU TO STATE WHAT THE LAW SAYS, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE THE JURY CAN NOT BE INVITED TO SPECULATE SO THERES SUCH POSSIBLE STATEMENTS THAT COULD BE MADE. But I DONT WANT TO TRY TO RULE IN ADVANCE, SINCE IVE REFRAINED FROM DOING THAT, BECAUSE CANT READ YOUR MIND, BUT SO IM NOLTE GOING TO SAY YOU CANT, MENTION THAT AT ALL THAT ITS UNLAWFUL TO POINT A GUN AT SOMEBODY., THE JURORS PROBABLY HAVE A SENSE Of THAT ANYWAY, BUT AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE SAID, I CANT TELL YOU WHAT IS IN AND OUT OF POUNDS. OKAY, WHEREAS NEXT THATS, ALL WE HAVE. OKAY. READY FOR THE JURY ILL, PROBABLY TAKE A BREAK AFTER THE LENGTHY INSTRUCTIONS AND WELL BEGIN. Our FINAL PHASE OF OUR CASE, WHICH IS MY INSTRUCTIONS AND IM GOING TO INSTRUCT YOU ON THE PRINCIPALS OF LAW, WHICH YOU ARE TO FOLLOW IN CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCE AND IN REACHING YOUR VERDICTS.

. It IS YOUR DUTY TO FOLLOW ALL OF THESE INSTRUCTIONS, REGARDLESS OF ANY OPINION THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS OR WHAT THE LAW OUGHT TO BE. You MUST BASE YOUR VERDICT ON THE LAW, AS I GIVE IT TO YOU IN THESE INSTRUCTIONS. APPLY THAT LAW TO THE FACTS IN THIS CASE, WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPERLY PROVED BY THE EVIDENCE., CONSIDER ONLY THE EVIDENCE RECEIVED DURING THE TRIAL AND THE LAW AS GIVEN TO YOU In THESE INSTRUCTIONS, AND FROM THESE THINGS ALONE, GUIDED BY YOUR SOUNDEST REASON AND BEST JUDGMENT REACH YOUR VERDICT., IF ANY OF YOU HAS ANY IMPRESSION OF MY OPINION AS TO THE INNOCENCE OR GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT, YOU MUST DISREGARD THAT IMPRESSION ENTIRELY AND DECIDE THIS CASE SOLELY As YOU VIEW, THE EVIDENCE., YOU ARE THE SOLE JUDGES OF THE FACTS, AND I AM THE JUDGE OF THE LAW. Only.. Keep IN MIND THAT THE INFORMATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A WRITTEN, FORMAL ACCUSATION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT, ACCUSING HIM OF THE COMMISSION OF CRIMES.. You ARE NOT TO CONSIDER IT AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN ANY WAY, AND IT DOES NOT RAISE ANY INFERENCE OF GUILT.. The INFORMATION CONTAINS SIX COUNTS OF CHARGED UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND TO EACH OF THESE HE AS ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY, WHICH IS A DEMAND THAT THE STATE PROVE EVERY ELEMENT OF EACH CRIME BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SELF. Defense IS AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE AS TO EACH COUNTS, ONE THROUGH FIVE, AND I MIGHT INTERJECT HERE COUNT.

Six IS NO LONGER PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION. THAT WAS THE FIREARM CHARGE., SO THAT WILL NOT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS. YOULL NEED TO ADDRESS. Only THE FIRST FIVE COUNTS. WELL SELF DEFENSE IS AN ISSUE IN THIS CASE AS TO EACH OF COUNTS, ONE THROUGH FIVE.. The STATE MUST PROVE BY EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE.. The LAW OF SELF DEFENSE ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO THREATEN OR INTENTIONALLY USE FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER ONLY IF HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS AN ACTUAL OR IMMINENT UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS OWN PERSON AND THAT HE BELIEVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF FORCE WHICH HE USED OR THREATENED TO USE Was NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR TERMINATE THE INTERFERENCE AND HIS BELIEFS WERE REASONABLE., THE DEFENDANT MAY INTENTIONALLY USE FORCE WHICH IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. Only IF HE REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT EMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIS OWN PERSON., A BELIEF MAY BE REASONABLE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS MISTAKEN IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS BELIEFS WERE REASONABLE. The STANDARD WHAT ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE AND PRUDENCE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED IN THE DEFENDANTS POSITION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSES.. The REASONABLENESS MUST BE DETERMINED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE DEFENDANTS ACTS AND NOT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE JURY NOW.. There IS NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

, HOWEVER, IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DEFENDANT REASONABLY BELIEVED THE AMOUNT OF FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR TERMINATE THE INTERFERENCE. You MAY CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETREAT WITH SAFETY WHETHER SUCH RETREAT WAS FEASIBLE AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT KNEW OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETREAT.. You SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT PROVOKED THE ATTACK., A PERSON WHO ENGAGES IN UNLAWFUL CONDUCT OF A TYPE LIKELY TO PROVOKE OTHERS TO ATTACK AND WHO DOES PROVOKE AN ATTACK IS NOT ALLOWED TO USE OR THREATEN FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE AGAINST THAT ATTACK.. However, IF THE ATTACK WHICH FOLLOWS, CAUSES THE PERSON REASONABLY TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS AN EMINENT DANGER OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM, HE MAY LAWFULLY ACT IN SELF DEFENSE, BUT THE PERSON MAY NOT USE OR THREATEN FORCE INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH UNLESS HE REASONABLY Believes THAT HE HAS EXHAUSTED EVERY OTHER, REASONABLE MEANS TO ESCAPE FROM OR OTHERWISE AVOID, DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. COUNTS. Four AND FIVE REQUIRE INTENT TO KILL AS PART OF THE ELEMENTS. INTENT TO KILL, MEANS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE MENTAL PURPOSE TO TAKE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OR HIS CONDUCT WAS CERTAIN TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. While THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTED WITH THE INTENT TO KILL, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE INTENT TO KILL HAVE EXISTED FOR ANY PARTICULAR LENGTH OF TIME BEFORE THE ACT WAS COMMITTED.. The ACT NEED NOT HAVE BEEN BRUTED OVER CONSIDERED OR REFLECTED UPON FOR A WEEK A DAY, AN HOUR OR EVEN FOR A MINUTE.

. There NEED NOT HAVE BEEN ANY TIME BETWEEN THE FORMS OF THE INTEND AND THE ACT.. The INTENT TO KILL MAY BE FORMED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE ACT, INCLUDING THE INSTANT BEFORE THE ACT, AND MUST HAVE CONTINUED TO EXISTED AT THE TIME OF THE ACT.. You CAN NOT LOOK INTO A PERSONS MIND TO DETERMINE INTENT. INTENT TO KILL, MUST BE FOUND IF FOUND AT ALL FROM THE DEFENDANTS, ACTS WORDS AND STATEMENTS OF ANY AND FROM ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE, WHICH BEAR UPON INTENT. INTENT SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED With MOTIVE. PROOF OF MOTIVE IS NECESSARY. Excuse ME, WHILE PROOF OF MOTIVE IS NECESSARY TO A CONVICTION, PROOF OF MOTIVE IS NOT.. Motive REFERS TO A PERSONS REASON FOR DOING SOMETHING., WHILE MOTIVE MAY BE SHOWN AS A CIRCUMSTANCE TO AID IN ESTABLISHING THE GUILT OF THE DEFENDANT. The STATE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT IN ORDER TO CONVICT. EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE DOES NOT BY ITSELF ESTABLISH GUILT.. You SHOULD GIVE IT THE WEIGHT. You BELIEVE IT DESERVES UNDER ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.. The FIRST COUNT CHARGES ON OR ABOUT TUESDAY, THE 25th OF AUGUST OF LAST UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOW UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. AND ANOTHER HUMAN BEING UTTER DISREGARD. FOR HUMAN LIFE.. Before YOU CAN FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF RECKLESSNESS IN THE 2nd DEGREE, THE REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE THREE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT, THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER CAUSE MEANS THAT THE DEFENDANTS AT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN PRODUCING THE DEATH.

. Second, THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH BY CRIMINALLY RECKLESS CONDUCT, WHICH MEANS IT GREELEY RISK OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO ANOTHER PERSON, AND THE RISK OF DEATH OR BODILY HARM WAS UNREASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL., AND THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THAT THE THAT CREATED THE UNREASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL Risk OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM., THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. In DETERMINING WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD OF HUMAN LIFE, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THESE FACTORS. WITH THE DEFENDANT WAS DOING WHY HE WAS ENGAGED IN THAT CONDUCT. How DANGEROUS THE CONDUCT WAS. How OBVIOUS WAS THE DANGER AND WHETHER IT SHOWED ANY REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE AND OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO THE TEST RIGHT TO THE CONDUCT.? If, AS TO THE FIRST COUNT, YOUR IS SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT BOTH ELEMENTS OF THIS CRIME HAVE BEEN PROVEN AND THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE. As I HAVE INSTRUCTED YOU ON THE WALL SELF DEFENSE, THEN YOU SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF RECKLESS HOMICIDE IN THE FIRST DEGREE AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION.. If YOURE NOT SATISFIED, YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY ON THIS. Count. TRUCK COMES TO IN THREE OF THE INFORMATION ACCUSING DEFENDANT OF THE CRIMES OF RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, ALTHOUGH THE LM SO THAT TALENTS OF EACH OF THE CHARTERS ARE DIFFICULT, THE RULES OF SO DEFENSE THAT APPLY TO THEM OR NOT. SELF DEFENSE.. The SECOND KIND OF THE INFORMATION CHARGES THAT AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE THE DEFENDANT RECKLESSLY ENDANGERED THE SAFETY OF RICHARD McGINNIS UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOW UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.

The THIRD COUNT OF THE INFORMATION CHARGES AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE THE DEFENDANT RECKLESSLY ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF AN UNKNOWN MALE UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOW UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.. 1St DEGREE. Reckless ENDANGERMENT, AS DEFINED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE, IS DEFINED BY ONE WHO RIGOROUSLY ENDANGERS THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH SHOW UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.. Before YOU MIGHT FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT OF THE 1st DEGREE, THE STATE MUST PROVE BY EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES YOU GOT A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT.. First, DEFENDANT RECKLESSLY ENDANGER THE SAFETY OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, AND THE RISK OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM WAS UNREASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL, AND THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THAT HIS CONDUCT CREATED THE UNREASONABLE AND SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY. Harm.. Great BODILY HARM MEANS INJURY, WHICH CREATES A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF DEATH OR WHICH CAUSES SERIOUS PERMANENT DISFIGUREMENT OR CAUSES A PERMANENT OR PROTRACTED LOSS OR IMPAIRMENT OF THE FUNCTION OF ANY BODILY MEMBER OR ORGAN OR SERIOUS BELLY INJURY.. The THIRD ELEMENT IS, AT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS, CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. AGAIN IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. You SHOULD CONSIDER THESE FACTORS WHAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DOING, WHY THE DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE CONDUCT. How DANGEROUS WAS THE CONDUCT? How OBVIOUS WAS THE DANGER WITH THE CONDUCT SHOWED ANY REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE AND ALL OTHER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED TO THE CONDUCT.

? When I WAS INSERTING A MOMENT AGO ON RECKLESS HOMICIDE, I INDICATED THERE WERE TWO ELEMENTS. I DID READ ALL THE INGREDIENTS BUT IM GOING TO REREAD A PORTION OF THE INSTRUCTION. So IT IS CLEAR, THERE ARE THREE ELEMENTS TO THE CRIME AND I USE THE WORD BOTH OF THE ELEMENTS AND IS ACTUALLY THREE.. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT MISTAKE AND WE WILL STOP WITH RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RETURNED TO THE RECKLESS HOMICIDE AND THE ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS HOMICIDE AND ARE THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER DID SO BY CRIMINALLY RECKLESS CONDUCT. And THE THIRD ELEMENT, WHICH I READ AS PART OF THE SECOND, IS THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE., AND WHAT TIPPED ME OFF IS THAT OTHER THAN CAUSING DEATH, THE RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT WHICH IVE BEEN READING NOW HAS THOSE SAME THREE Elements. UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH CRIMES. AND IN ORDER TO CONVICT ON THE FIRST COUNT, YOU MUST FIND THE PRESENCE OF ALL THREE OF THE ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE. AND FIND THE UNREASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT Privileged UNDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE. WAS A CLEAR THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THE WITH US ENDANGERMENT CHARGE WITH RELATION TO McGINNIS, AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THE DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE AGAINST ROSENBAUM.. The FACT THAT THE LAW MAY HAVE ALLOWED THE DEFENDANT TO USE FORCE IN SELF DEFENSE AS TO JUST OF ROSENBAUM DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING THE SAFETY OF RICHARD McGINNIS WAS LAWFUL.

. You MUST CONSIDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE AND DECIDING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT AS TO RICHARD McGINNIS WAS CRIMINALLY RECKLESS CONDUCT, WHICH SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. But THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT HAVE A PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE WITH RESPECT MR. McGINNIS, SO THE DEFENDANT WOULD ENJOY THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE WITH RESPECT TO MR. ROSENBAUM, IF YOU FIND THE FACTUAL INGREDIENTS OF THAT, THAT DOESNT MEAN THAT THE FACT THAT IF HE ENDANGER THE Safety OF MR. McGINNIS WAS PRIVILEGED UNDER THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE, BECAUSE MR. McGINNIS WAS NOT ATTACKING HIM.. However, YOU MUST CONSIDER THE LOSS OF DEFENSE IN THE SIDING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT AS TO RICHARD McGINNIS WAS CRIMINALLY RECKLESS CONDUCT, WHICH SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. He DOES NOT HAVE A PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE AS TO RICHARD McGINNIS.. The LAW OF SELF DEFENSE ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO THREATEN OR USE FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER ONLY IF THE DEFENDANT BELIEVE THERE WAS AN ACTUAL OR IMMINENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE DEFENDANTS PERSON THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF FORCE USED OR THREATENED TO USE WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR Terminate THE INTERFERENCE AND HIS BELIEFS WERE REASONABLE., THE DEFENDANT MAY INTENTIONALLY USE FORCE WHICH IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. Only THE DEFENDANT REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT THE FORCE USE WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY INJURY TO HIMSELF.. A BELIEVE. May BE REASONABLE, EVEN THOUGH MISTAKEN. IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS, POLICE, REASONABLE STANDARD, IS WHAT A PERSON OF ORDINARY INTELLIGENCE AND PRUDENCE WOULDVE BELIEVED IN THE DEFENDANTS POSITION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE.

, THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DEFENDANTS BELIEVES MUST BE DETERMINED From THE STANDPOINT OF THE DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF HIS ACTS AND NOT FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THE JURY NOW., YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO SELF DEFENSE, ALONG WITH ALL OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE IN THE CASE, IN THE SIDING WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT CREATED AN Unreasonable RISK OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO RICHARD McGINNIS. IF THE DEFENDANT WAS ACTING LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE. With RESPECT TO JOSEPH ROSENBAUM, HIS CONDUCT DID NOT CREATE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO ANOTHER. The BURDEN IS ON THE STATE. The BURDEN IS ON THE STATE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE, AND YOU MUST BE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE THAT THE RISK WAS UNREASONABLE.. You SHOULD CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE RELATING TO SELF DEFENSE AND DECIDING WHETHER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. The BURDEN IS ON THE STATE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACT LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE AND MUST BE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT FROM ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. In THIS CASE THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE., IF, AS TO EACH OF THESE COUNTS, YOU ARE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVED AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING LAWFULLY IN SELF DEFENSE. You SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF RECKLESS HOMICIDE OF THE 1st DEGREE.

If YOURE NOT SO SATISFIED, YOU MUST FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY.. The FOURTH COUNT OF THE INFORMATION CHARGES OF THE SAME TIME AND PLACE THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING ANTHONY WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THE PERSON INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE OF THE 1st DEGREE, AND YOU MUST CONSIDER WHETHER HE IS GUILTY OF THAT OFFENSE. If YOURE NOT SATISFIED, THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, YOU MAY CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF 2nd DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE OF FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, WHICH IS THE 1st DEGREE OF INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE., FIRST AND 2nd DEGREE. Intentional HOMICIDE AND FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, ART DIFFERENT DEGREES OF HOMICIDE. HOMICIDE IS THE TAKING OF THE LIFE OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The DEGREE OF HOMICIDE DEFINED BY LAW DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH PARTICULAR CASE., WHILE THE LAW SEPARATES HOMICIDES UNDER DIFFERENT TYPES AND DEGREES, THERE ARE CERTAIN ELEMENTS WHICH ARE, AND EACH CRIME., BOTH INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS HOMICIDE REQUIRE THAT THE DEFENDANT HAVE CAUSED THE DEATH Of ANOTHER, FIRST AND 2nd DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE REQUIRE THE STATE TO PROVE THE ADDITIONAL FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT HAVE ACTED WITH THE INTENT TO KILL FIRST DEGREE. Reckless HOMICIDE REQUIRES THAT THE DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE AND ALSO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE IN DECIDING WHICH CRIME, IF ANY THE DEFENDANT HAS COMMITTED. THE CRIMINAL CODE OF WISCONSIN PROVIDES THAT A PERSON IS PRIVILEGED TO INTENTIONALLY USE FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF PREVENTING OR TERMINATING WHAT HE REASONABLY BELIEVES TO BE AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS OWN PERSON BY THE OTHER.

Person. MAY ONLY USE SUCH FORCE, AS HE REASONABLY BELIEVES, IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT OR TERMINATE THE INTERFERENCE. He MAY NOT INTENTIONALLY USE FORCE WHICH IS INTENDED OR LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH UNLESS HE REASONABLY BELIEVES THAT SUCH FORCE IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. To HIMSELF AS APPLIED TO THIS CASE, THE EFFECT OF THE LAW OF SELF DEFENSE IS THE DEFENDANT IS NOT GUILTY OF ANY HOMICIDE OFFENSE. If THE DEFENDANT REASONABLY BELIEVED HE WAS PREVENTING OR TERMINATING AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS OWN PERSON OR REASONABLY BELIEVED THE FORCE USED BY HIM. Excuse ME AND REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT THE FORCE USED BY HIM WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF.. The DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF 2nd DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE IF HE CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, WITH INTENT TO KILL AND ACTUALLY BELIEVED. The FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF. But THE BELIEF OR THE AMOUNT OF FORCE USED WAS OF THE REASONABLE UNREASONABLE. FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE IF HE INTENDED TO CAUSE THE DEATH OF ANOTHER WITH THE INTENT TO KILL AND DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT Bodily HARM TO HIMSELF. THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE, RECKLESS HOMICIDE IF THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER BY CRIMINALLY RECKLESS CONDUCT AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CONDUCT SHOWED UTTER DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE.. You WILL BE ASKED TO CONSIDER THE PRIVILEGE OF SELF DEFENSE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ELEMENTS OF FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE ARE PRESENT.

AND BECAUSE THE LAW PROVIDES, IS THE STATES BURDEN TO PROVE ALL FACTS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A CRIME BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. You WILL NOT BE ASKED TO MAKE A SEPARATE FINDING AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT ACTED IN SELF DEFENSE.. Instead, YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STAGES ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY FACTS THAT JUSTIFY A FINDING OF GUILTY FOR, FIRST OR 2nd DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE OR FOR FIRST DEGREE, RECKLESS HOMICIDE.. If THE STATE DOES NOT SATISFY YOU WITH THOSE FACTS AND THEY ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE, YOU WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO FIND THE DEFENDANT, NOT GUILTY.. The FACTS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE EACH CRIME WILL NOW BE DEFINED TO YOU IN GREATER DETAIL. FIRST DEGREE. Intentional HOMICIDE, AS DEFINED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE, IS COMMITTED BY ONE WHO CAUSES THE DEATH OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THAT PERSON OR ANOTHER. THIS CASE FIRST DEGREE. Intentional HOMICIDE ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF MAY FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY. The STATE MUST PROVE BY EVIDENCE THAT SATISFIES YOU BY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT.. First, THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER CAUSE MEANS IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IN PRODUCING THE DEATH. Second, THAT THE DEFENDANT ACTED WITH THE INTENT TO KILL THE OTHER THROUGH THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF, AND THE THIRD ELEMENT OF THE FIRST DEGREE SECTION OF INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE REQUIRES THAT The DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF.

This REQUIRES THE STATE TO PROVE EITHER THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE HE WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM, OR THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DANGER OF DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM. To HIMSELF. WHEN FIRST DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE IS CONSIDERED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT. Excuse ME WHEN FIRST DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE IS CONSIDERED THE REASONABLENESS OF THE DEFENDANTS. Belief IS NOT AN ISSUE. You ARE TO BE CONCERNED ONLY WITH WHAT THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY BELIEVED WHETHER THOSE BELIEFS ARE REASONABLE IS IMPORTANT ONLY IF YOU LATER CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF 2nd DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.. If, AS TO THE FOURTH COUNT, YOU ARE SATISFIED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER WITH THE INTENT TO KILL. This IS MR. UBER, WITH THE INTENT TO KILL AND THE DEFENDANT DID NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE THE FORCE USED WAS NECESSARY TO PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF. You SHOULD FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE. If NOT, YOU MUST NOT FIND HIM GUILTY AND CONSIDER WHETHER THEY ARE GUILTY OF 2nd DEGREE. Intentional HOMICIDE, AS DEFINED IN THE CRIMINAL CODE, WHICH IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.. There ARE HIERARCHIES OF CASES AND THE LAW. TYPICALLY FIRST DEGREE IS THE HIGHEST DEFENSE. Then LESSER INCLUDED ARE CRIMES THAT ARE OF THE SAME NATURE, WITH MANY COMMON ELEMENTS, BUT SOME DIFFERENCES.

So THERE IS A SEQUENCE OF BURDENS THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO YOU WITH RESPECT TO THIS COUNT AND THATS WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS TIME. WE WILL TAKE ON, THOUGH ME ADVISE YOU GOT, YOU SHOULD MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO AGREE UNANIMOUSLY ON THE CHARGE OF Intentional HOMICIDE OF THE 1st DEGREE BEFORE CONSIDERING THE OFFENSIVE 2nd DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE.. However, IF, AFTER A FULL AND COMPLETE CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU CONCLUDE THAT FURTHER DELIBERATION WOULD NOT RESULT IN UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT ON A CHARGE OF FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE. You SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE., BEFORE YOU MIGHT FIND THEM GUILTY. The STATE MUST PROVE BY EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE ELEMENTS OF THIS CRIME WERE PRESENT.. First, THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE DEATH OF ANOTHER AND THE INTENT TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING AND 3rd THAT HE DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS PREVENTING OR TERMINATING AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS OWN PERSON AND OR DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT IT WAS NOT THE SILLY To PREVENT IMMINENT DEATH OR GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIMSELF. AND ALREADY BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFINITIONS OF CAUSING DEATH WITH THE INTENT TO KILL. AND THE SAME DEFINITIONS APPLY TO YOUR CONSIDERATION OF SECOND DEGREE, INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE., THE THIRD ELEMENT OF 2nd DEGREE. Intentional HOMICIDE REQUIRES THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS PREVENTING OR TERMINATING AN UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH HIS OWN PERSON OR DID NOT BERATIONS OVERCOME BY EVIDENCE WHICH SATISFIES YOU BEYOND YOUR REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY.

. The BURDEN ESTABLISHING EVERY FACT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE GUILT IS UPON THE STATE. BEFORE YOU RETURN A GUILTY VERDICT OF GUILTY. The EVIDENCE MUST SATISFY YOU BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY.. If YOU CAN RECONCILE THE EVIDENCE UPON ANY REASONABLE HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH THE INNOCENCE OF THE DEFENDANT, THEN YOU MUST DO SO AND FIND HIM NOT GUILTY.. The TERM REASONABLE DOUBT MEANS A DOUBT BASED UPON RECENT AND COMMON SENSE.. It IS A DOUBT FOR WHICH REASON CAN BE GIVEN ARISING FROM A FAIR AND RATIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE OR WANT OF EVIDENCE.. It MEANS YOU DOUBT AS WOULD CAUSE A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE TO PAUSE OR HESITATE WHEN CALLED UPON TO ACT IN THE MOST IMPORTANT AFFAIRS OF LIFE.. A REASONABLE DOUBT IS NOT A DOUBT WHICH IS BASED UPON A GUESS OR SPECULATION. A DOUBT ARISES MERELY FROM SYMPATHY OR FAIRNESS OF RETURNING. A VERDICT OF INNOCENT IS NOT A REASONABLE DOUBT.. It IS NOT WHAT COULD BE USED TO ESCAPE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A DECISION., EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH., GIVE THE DEFENDANT THE BENEFIT OF EVERY REASONABLE DOUBT. EVIDENCE IS DEFINED FIRST, AS THE SWORN TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES, BOTH IN DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION, REGARDLESS OF THE Party, WHO CALLED THE WITNESS SECOND AND EXHIBITS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, WHETHER WERE NOT THEY ACCOMPANY YOU TO THE JURY, ROOM.. Third, ANY TAX WHICH THE LAWYERS HAVE AGREED TO OR STIPULED OR FOR WHICH I HAVE DIRECTED YOU TO FIND ANYTHING THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN OR HEARDOUTSIDE.

The COURTROOM IS NOT EVIDENCE. YARDO DECIDE THE CASE SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE OFFERED AND RECEIVED AT THIS TRIAL. YOSHOULD DISREGARD ENTIRELY IN A QUESTION TO WHICI DID NOT PERMIT AN ANSWER.. Do NOT GUESS WHAT THE WITNESS ANER MY DEPENDENT. If THE QUESTION ITSELF SUGGESTED, CERTAIN INFORMATION MIGHT NOT BE TRUE, IGNORE THIS SUGGESTION AND DO NOT CONSIDER IT AS EVIDENCE. ATTOEYS FOR EACH SITE HAVE THE RIGHT AND DUTY TO OBJECT TO QUESTIONS ASKED. Ofwitnesses. WENT TO THE RECEIPT OF OTHER EVIDCE, WHICH THEY BELIEVE IS NOT PROPERLY ADMISSIBLE.. You SHOULD NOT, DR ANY THE FACT THAT AN OBJECTION IS MADE. BY ALLOWING TESTIMONY OR OBJECTION. I DO T NEED TO INDICATE Y OPINION AS TO TH EVIDENCE.. You JURORS ARE THE SOLEJUDGES OF THE BELIEVABILITY, THE WITNESSES AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. THE BEGINNING OF THE TRIAL AND DISCARD THE PARTIES AGAINST SEVEN, WHICH RESPTIVELY ARGED WITH POSSESSION OF A FIREARBY A MINOR ANCURFEW OLATION.. They HAVEBEEN DISPOSEDF AND ARE NO LONGER PART OF THIS CASE.. The OTHER CO R, YOURSELVES WITH THE REASONS FOR AFFECT YOUR NSIDERATION OF THE CHARGETHAT REMAINED., DO NOT CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT RELATEONLY TO THE COUNTS WHICH VE BEEN DISPOSED OF. DURING THE TRIALIVE ORDERED CERTAIN TESTIMONY STCKEN AND YOU MUST DISREGARD AL, SUCH STRICK TESTIMONY. WHEN RECEIVEBY THE URT. On AN EIBIT WHICH WAMARKED FOR ENTIFICATION T, I CEIVED NOT EVIDCE. EXCUSEME. IS NOT EVIDEN. ANXHIBIT RECEIV, ISEVIDENCE, WHET YOTO, THE JURY, ROOM. REMAS OF THE WYERARE, NOT EVIDENCE.. They SUGGEST RTAIFACT SUESTIS.

, YOU OULD CONSIDER CARELLY THE OSINARGUMENTS OF E ATTORNS. IF THEIR GUMES AND OPINIONS ARE DRY, RUN CONCSIONS FROM THE EVID E INSTRUCTIONS GIVEYOU THE COT. I HAVETAKEJUDICIAL NOTI OF CERT DIREED TO ACCEPT EM AS TRUE. THE STATE S INTRODUCE EVENCE AND STATEMENTS ICH Itclaims WER IS F YOU TO DETMINE WHH WEIGHT IANY TO GIVE TO ANY SYMBH DOMESTICYOU ST CONSER THREE THIN, WHETHER THE ATEMT WAS ACALLYMADE UP BY DEND. Atement IS WAMADE BY A PEON MAY EVENCE. WHHER E STATEMT WA TRIALHETH, THE STATEMENOR E ANY PART. It OUGHT TOBE BELIEVE YOU OULDCONSIDERTHE CTS AND CIUMSTANCEAROU SURRNDING, THE MAKI OFA STATEMEN EVENCE IN TERMING HOW CH WGHT, IF ANY, STATENT THE WEIGHT, THE EVIDEN DO NOT PEND ON THE NUMB OF WITNESS OF ONE WITNESS, HAS ENTILY GREATEWEIGHT THAN AT ANOTHEWITNESS.. You Y, GIVEN SUCH IGHTAND. Take INTO ACUNT TTERS OF Y YOUROM SERVIONS AND EXPEENCEIN TEIFY ONLY ABOUFACT MAY HOWEVE WITSSES WI SPECLIZEKNOWLEDGE IN OPINIONS, ITHE FIDS.GIVE IN DETMINI THE WEIGHT AT YOU GIVE THESE OPINIO YO SHOULD NSID THE QUIFICATIONS ANDCREDILITY OF THE EXPT.. The FACTUPON WHICH E OPINIONS ARE BASE AND E REASONS, GIVEFOTHE OPINION., OPINN EVENCE, WAS RECEIV TO LP. You REACH A CONCLU OPION. ITS YO DUTY, ASTESK, TESTIMONY OFTHE, TNESSES AND DETEINE THE EFFE OF THE EVENCE. You E THSOLE JUDG OF THE OFHE WITNESSES THWAY TO BE GIVEN THEIR TESTONY. IN DETERNINGTHCREDILITY, EACWITNESS AND E WAY. U GIVE TO E TESTIMONY OF EACH YOU OULD CONSIDERTHES FACTORS., WHETHER THE WIESS IS INTERESTEDOR, DISINTESTEIN E OUTCOME OF THIS TRIAL OR COND DEANOR AND WITNSED.

The CLITY LACK CLITY OF T WI IS OFF COLLTIONS. WITNESS HAD TOKNOW OFAN OBSERVED THE MENTS D, THINKS ABT GIN. THE REASONLENE OF TH, WITNESS S INTELLIGENCEBIASOR PREJICE. If N SHOWN. POSSLE MOTORS TO FALSIF ANALL, OTHEFAS AND CIUMSTA DISCDIT E TESTIMONY., AN THENIVE, THE TESTONY EACH. It IS ENTIED RECEIVE. E THDEFEND YOSHOULD, NOT DIREDIHIS TESTIMY JU BECAE HEIS, CHARD WIT DETERME THCREDIBILITY, AN WEIGHT E TESTIMONY. Ofother WITNSES. IS NO MAGICAWAY FOR YOUO COMMON SENSEAND, YOUR YOUR PERIENCE. IN THEIR EVERAY VES. You DETERM LIABILITY OF ATEMTS MADE TO YOU. You SHOULDDO E SAME THING: HERE. EVIDCE HAS BEEN RECEIVE, O COICTED OFCRIM. BEEN THIS IDEN WOULD RECEIV SILLY BEU, TRUTHFNESSTER R. It MUST US FOR ANY OTHE PURPOSE. CLOSING STYOU KNOWWHAT DOES AN EV A SHORT ONEOR NOT OR DO YO RMAT IN THE COT.. That IS THE P E SOMR. BINGER WILL ADDRS YOU ON 120 FROM THSTATE WILL ADDRES YOU ON BEHA OF THE STATE AND A LIMITEREBUAL OF TNGS MR. ROERS. During HIS PRESENTATION. I WILL NOT MA YOU S FOR FIVE HOUR UNSS. You WANT TO. ANDWEWI BACK.. I ASDMR.. Mr. BIER, IF HE WAS COMFORTAE BREAKING HIS ARGU, HE INDICED HE WAS. A TIME. He THKS IS APOPRIATE, RUNNING WEWILL, TA HOUR LUNCH BREA, AND THEN WE WILL PICK THIS AND AFTER ALL, OF E ARGUMENTS HA BEEN PRESENTE. I WILL GI YOU ABOUT THREE FOUR MOMENTS INSTRUCTION AND THEN WE WILL DO R INDISCNIBLE TH THE TI OVER ERE. TH. It WILL BE URS.

SO K? U, WHICH E? Do YOU WANT THE SISTERS? Okay.? We WILLTAKE A BOATRIGHT NOW.. Supposing THE CASE ARGUMTS ARFINISHED. We WILL TAKE A VOTE RIGHT, NOW., 430 OR 5., AND WE WILL BE WORKG WELL TO GET THERE.. How MANY WOULD LIKE TOBEGIN THEIR DELIBERATIONS, TOGHT AND STAY UNTIL A LATER HOUR OR HOW MANYOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND START FRESH INTHE WARNING AND THE CUT OFF POINT WOULBE LETS SAY WE GET FINISHED BY 400, GIVEN THCASE AND THE LATEST I WOD. Let YOU GO IF YOU DID NOT WANT TO STAY LA WOULD PROBABLY BE ABOUT 500.. So DONT KNOW HOW MUCH YOU WOULD GET DONE.. You COULD HAVE THOPTION TO GET STARTEWITH THIS TODAY. OR WE COULDSTART FRESH IN TH MORNING, IF WE FISH ANY TIME AFTER 330 400.. How MANY WOULD WANT TO CONTINUE ON TODAY, ONE TWO THREE FOUR: FIVE, SIX, SEVEN A. WE HAVE A TEAM.. How MANY WOULD RATHER COME BACK FRESH TOMORROW KNOW SOME OF YOU ARE COMING BACK., BUT OKAY, OF COURSE, AS ALWAYS, I WILL MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.. I WILL TRY TO FOLLOW YOUR WISHES. OKAY. WITH THAT, MR. BINGER, IT IS YOURS.. Thank YOU SIR.. Good MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN., I WANT TO ASSURE YOU EVERYTHING THE JUDGE HAS PRAY TO YOU. You WILL GET A COPY OF, SO YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK IT OVER YOURSELF.. You DONT HAVE TO MEMORIZE EVERYTHING HE JUST TOLD YOU.. I THINK IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT THIS IS A CASE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF NOISE AND A LOT OF STATIC SURROUNDING IT.

. So WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO AT THE BEGINNING IS CRYSTALLIZE IT IN A NUTSHELL, FOR YOU AND KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.. This IS A CASE IN WHICH A 17 YEAR OLD TEENAGER KILLED TWO UNARMED MEN AND SAVANNAH WANTED A THIRD PERSON WITH AN ERROR. 15, THAT DID NOT BELONG TO HIM. AN AR 15.. This WAS NOT A SITUATION WHERE HE WAS PROTECTING HIS HOME OR HIS FAMILY.. He GOT PEOPLE AFTER TRAVELING HERE FROM ANTIOCH ILLINOIS AND STAYING OUT AFTER A CITYWIDE CURFEW., YOUR HONOR, I OBJECT. THE CURFEW CHARGE. We ARE NOT CONSIDERING IT ANY MORE., ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMED THAT INDISCERNIBLE OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS. There IS NO CHARGE.. There HAS BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LAWFULNESS OF THE NOT IN THIS CASE BUT ELSEWHERE.. So THERE HAD BEEN A CURFEW ANNOUNCED.. That DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS TECHNICALLY LOVELY A LEGAL CURFEW.. There HAVE BEEN AN OUNCE CURFEWS., I WILL LEAVE IT AT THAT. WAS A CURFEW. All THE REST OF US HERE IN KENOSHA WERE AWARE.. I THINK MOST PEOPLE MOST REASONABLE PEOPLE OBEYED., ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT CLAIMED TO BE PROTECTING A BUSINESS THAT HE WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH. The ACTUAL KILLINGS IN THIS CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. AND HE ALSO SPENT THE ENTIRE EVENING LYING ABOUT THE FACT WAS AN EMT.. None OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST TOLD YOU ARE IN DOUBT IN THIS CASE., SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE DEFENDANT, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER, AS YOU THINK ABOUT THIS CASE, WHAT WERE HIS TWO MOTIVATIONS WAS THIS A SITUATION WHERE HE SINCERELY CARED ABOUT CAR Source, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD NEVER HEARD OF IT, NEVER BOUGHT ANYTHING THERE, IT NEVER WORKED THERE OR NOT.

Even ITS OWNERS WERE THERE THAT NIGHT PROTECTING IT. WAS HE GENUINELY INTERESTED IN HELPING PEOPLE? If YOU RAN AROUND WITH AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 15 AND LIED ABOUT BEING AN EMT, DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU? He GENUINELY IS THERE TO HELP. He IS NOT THERE FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AS THE PROTESTERS., SO WHY WAS HE THERE THAT NIGHT? When YOU THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS? I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN ALL AGREE. On. IN AMERICA. It IS HARD THESE DAYS. PEOPLE ARE POLARIZED.. There IS A LOT A LOT OF POLITICAL ISSUES BACK AND FORTH.. The JOSH REDDICK FOR THIS CASE IS NOT ABOUT POLITICS.. There IS COMMON GROUND HERE.. We HAVE ALL AGREED – AND I ASKED YOU THIS TWO WEEKS AGO TODAY RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU AGREE. Life IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROPERTY. All OF YOU RAISED YOUR HAND.. We ALSO AGREED THAT NO ONE PERSONS LIFE IS MORE VALUABLE THAN ANOTHER.. You GET TO KILL SOMEONE SILLY BECAUSE THEY ARE A DRUG DEALER.. You DONT WEAR A PASTORS LIVE OVER A TEACHERS LIE. YOU DONT, WEAR A POLICE OFFICERS. Five OVER AN ENGINEER. Prophesy. ALL LIFE IS SACRED.. I THINK WE CAN ALSO AGREED THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE 17 YEAR OLDS RUNNING AROUND OUR STREETS WITH TRAN22S.. This IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS.. Finally, I WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND. We HAVE ALL READ STORIES AND HEARD ABOUT HEROES THAT STEP IN TO STOP AN ACTIVE SHOOTER OR GIVE THEIR LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS.

. In FACT, MANY PEOPLE IN WISCONSIN WENT OUT AND GOT CARRIE AND CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS JUST SO THEY COULD BE THERE IN CASE THERE WAS AN ACTIVE SHOOTER AND WANTING TO STOP. So WHEN YOU CONSIDER THIS CASE, LOOK FOR THE TRUTH., SO MANY PEOPLE LOOK AT THIS CASE AND THEY SEE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE.. They HAVE A PRECONCEIVED NOTION.. They TAILOR THE FACTS TO FIT WHATEVER THEY BELIEVE.. You ALL AGREED TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND.. You ALL TOLD US YOU DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS.. Now YOU HAVE HEARD THE EVIDENCE.. It IS TIME TO SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH. SO CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HEROIC OR HONORABLE TO PROVOKE AND SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE. CONSIDER WHETHER IT MAKES SOMEONE A HERO WHEN THEY LIE ABOUT BEING AN EMT.. I THINK ALL OF US ARE FAMILY OR WITH SOMEONE WHO DOES THE SORTS OF THINGS THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS DONE., THEY ENJOY THE THRILL OF GOING AROUND AND TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO DO WITHOUT THE COURAGE OR THE HONOR TO BACK IT UP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i7xSigmrfw