Sample Confusing Jury Instructions Criminal Case

Attorneys in James Ray case prepare for closing arguments

Camp Verde, AZ – Day 49 of AZ v. James Ray was another day of contentious legal haggling.  There were several key points that were at issue with regard to what instructions the jury would be given before hearing closing arguments and beginning their deliberations.  After hearing each argument from the attorneys, Judge Warren Darrow registered somewhat of an opinion to which way he was leaning, but reserved his final ruling in the matter for Wednesday morning.

The first issue had to do with what is called the Willits instruction.  Specifically, this addresses Arizona case law wherein material evidence has been negligently lost or destroyed.  The defense argued that this is required since investigators did not adequately preserve the crime scene or blood samples from the decedents.  The State countered that the question is not if samples were, in fact, preserved, but if enough was preserved. 

The defense argued that lead investigator Detective Ross Diskin could have been more proactive in pursuing the leads he had already been given.  Diskin stated in testimony that he suspected toxins, yet there was inadequate follow through.  In conclusion, Judge Darrow said that he is inclined to permit the Willits instruction and instructed the parties to plan their closings accordingly.

The next issue regarded “motive.”  The State argued that James Ray’s “motive in running the sweat lodge ceremony was to take people to an altered state…and an altered state has been testified to as the hallmark for heat stroke.”  The defense countered that Melissa Philips’ testimony indicated that altered state could encompass more psychologically altered states and not a state physiologically linked to heat stroke. 

“Besides,” as defense attorney Tom Kelly indicated, “this is James Ray’s business, why, logically, would he want to kill his clients?” 

In the end, Judge Darrow indicated that he is inclined to allow this instruction.

Next, there was much contention over the use of the words “knowingly” and “intentionally” with regard to James Ray’s actions.  The defense argued that there has been no evidence that the defendant knowingly and intentionally caused the death of another, and the State argued that there is sufficient evidence that Ray acted knowingly. 

After the afternoon break, Judge Darrow suggested that the wording “should go no higher than ‘knowingly’ and exclude ‘intentionally.’”  The defense objected and offered, at the judge’s request, to provide case law to substantiate their objection.

Rod Blagojevich Jury Deliberates: Blagojevich Jury Must Factor Pay ...

As former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is no doubt sweating it out when it comes to his future, I remain convinced that if he is guilty then the government prosecutors better rent a few cattle cars to transport all the other corrupt politicians along with him. Don't get the wrong idea here, I am just as repulsed as most are by the actions of our former Polyester Governor. But the reality is clear, I am equally as repulsed by the pay to play culture that continues to flourish unabated even as this latest jury is deliberating. As I see it, the jury must factor in that pay to play culture when coming to a conclusion in this case. And that my friends is the $64 question. How can Rod Blagojevich be guilty when those who continue to ply their trade in smoke-filled backrooms, all across the state, are free to continue stealing from the taxpayer? Matter of fact, how did Rahm Emanuel allude prosecution as he angled to get a "seat warmer" for his own Congressional Seat while serving at the pleasure of the President? How did Emanuel rack up the mega contributions that bought City Hall? How does former Mayor Richard M. Daley ride off into the sunset amid allegations that his son angled a one degree of separation loophole to profit mightily from city business involving Wi-Fi at our airports? Even more repulsive to me is how former Mayor Daley's nephew, RJ Vanecko and his group of drinking friends escaped prosecution in the homicide of  David Koschman.

Look, the list is endless when it comes to shady deals, political horse-trading and cover-ups in Illinois politics. So? How does a jury convict a man who had lofty political dreams and an even bigger ego to match, while ignoring the daily philandering of the system as a whole? There is a valid argument to be made that what Blagojevich allegedly did was far less severe than some of the above examples given above. Besides, the prosecution hasn't done a very good job because they have failed to tie that any money ever changed hands. Could it be possible that Rod Blagojevich was just politically naive? Could it be that his staff of trusted advisers were actually the ones plotting amongst themselves for personal gain? Well, it could be true. Remember, the law is based on reasonable doubt. Anton "Tony" Rezko has remained holed-up somewhere because he was one of the first to start singing like a bird.

Model jury instructions in criminal antitrust cases

Sample jury instructions in criminal antitrust cases, a project of the Criminal Practice and Procedure Committee, Antitrust Section, American Bar Association

Courts and justice, a reader

UNDERSTANDING THE LAW

Using psychological science, making the public case