Weigh the Evidence, Watch the Docudrama

by Tony Maino

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You have heard all the evidence produced in the courtoom and have read and seen all the media accounts of this trial. You may consult the Nielsen ratings to see which media account got the highest rating. You may read any book about the case.

I must now advise you as to the law in the case. These instructions are not to help you resolve the case. They are for the Court of Appeals so that they will know I have read their latest opinions. Therefore, the instructions will be convoluted and obtuse. You will not understand them.

Your primary duty will be to decide what is the most reliable information about the case: what the prosecution said; what the defense said; what the media said or what the book said.

The material you have listened to and seen in this trial and in the media and in the book is what we call evidence. There are two types: direct evidence and indirect evidence. Direct evidence is what the lawyers directed the witnesses to say. Indirect evidence is what was implied by imnuendo in the questions asked by the attorneys and by the media commentators on the case. Both types of evidence are entitled to equal weight.

As jurors, you should be influenced by pity, prejudice, feelings, guesswork, emotions, public hysteria and privat fears. These factors are reliable indications of what should be done.

You will remember that I "struck" evidence from the record. Obiously, this was the most important evidence or the attorneys would not have cared whether you heard it or not. Keep this evidence and the evidence reported by the media, which I excluded from the trial, clearly in mind.

Every person who testifies under oath, or threat of indictment, or threat of bodily harm is a witness. Your duty is to decide which witnesses you liked best. In deciding which witness you liked best, you may consider the type of car they drive, where they lunch, their designer clothes, their hair, their body tone, the way they talked, the way they walked in and out of the courtroom and how much they were paid for their testimony by an attorney or by talk show hosts.

If you think that a witness lied, you should consider whether it was for an important reason. Police officers are privileged to lie from time to time when it appears to them to be necessary for the public good. This is known as the exclusionary rule. This rule allows them to exclude from their reports or testimony what really happened because they know the other side will lie and they have to anticipate ahead of time what those lies might be and work around them. Defendants may lie to counter police lies.

Expert witnesses are witnesses who will admit they were paid to be here. Obiously the more the witness was paid, the more credible he is. The lawyers asked them hypothetical questions. I have allowed hypothetical questions so the lawyers can show off in front of you and so that you can hear their arguments before the end of the case.

You cannot convict anyone unless he has criminal intent. Therefore, for example unless you find that the defendant pretended to stab the victim or pretended to be a burglar or pretended to rape the citim, he is guilty. A defendant "caught up in the moment" is not guilty, provided you like the defendent.

The defendant may not be convicted unless he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody knows what reasonable doubt is, but like pornography, you will know it when you see it. All we judges know is there is more reasonable doubt in Los Angeles thatn in San Diego and that if the case has obtained media status, there is more resonable doubt than if the case has no media status.