|
|
Sample Penalty Jury Instructions. The long instruction numbered 3(a) and the verdict form marked 3(b) below may seem complicated, and counsel may think it unlikely that the trial judge will go along with them. At least try. They are actually much more comprehensible for jurors than the current instructions and, more importantly perhaps from the judge's perspective, these are the only instructions that will insulate the verdict from a challenge under the theory of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 381-82, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988). See also McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S. Ct. 1227, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990). In Mills the Court held that "[e]ach individual juror shall weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist with any mitigating circumstances found unanimously to exist, as well as any mitigating circumstances found by that individual juror to exist." Id., 486 U.S. at 382 (emphasis omitted). One of these days, this instruction will become standard in the State of Louisiana, but only if we keep trying to show the dangers of using anything that explains the jury's role in less detail. If the main instruction is not accepted, submit some of the shorter instructions that at least convey part of the message of the longer one. These are critical to the jury understanding its real role in the sentencing equation. [1 - Overview] You have found the defendant guilty. You must now decide the appropriate sentence in this case. The fact that you have convicted the Defendant of murder does not mean that a death sentence is automatic or even warranted. Instead, the conviction only means that it is necessary for you, as jurors, to consider additional and different factors, and to resolve additional and different questions, relevant to the defendant's sentencing. Before I instruct on specific matters regarding this case, I will instruct you on the general principles that will govern your deliberations during this phase. In explaining your duties I must refer to many matters that you may not ever need to reach. This is because there may be at least four steps to the consideration of an appropriate punishment. Each step is dependent upon the step that precedes it. You may not reach one step unless you reach a particular decision at the prior step. By explaining all four potential steps I do not want to imply or suggest that I believe that it is necessary or in any way proper for you to reach any particular or final step in the deliberative process in this case. My instructions are not intended as an expression of any opinion or desire concerning the result you should reach. I must offer as complete an explanation as is possible concerning the legal matters that must govern your deliberations. Therefore it is necessary for me to instruct you on the entire process even though based on your consideration of the evidence and considered deliberation it may only be necessary to go through step one in order to resolve this case. I cannot stress to you enough that the focus of your deliberations during this phase is not the same as in an ordinary case. Death is unique. It is final and it is irrevocable. Having said and stressed that, however, you must also understand that except for certain matters that I will later explain, you will employ the same principles that you have already used in order to make decisions. [2 - No Guilty Plea in Capital Case] The Court instructs the jury that the law does not permit the accused in a capital case to plead guilty to first degree murder unless the State agrees not to seek the death penalty. The Court instructs the jury that in this case Mr. Client offered to plead guilty to first degree murder, but was not permitted to do so since the State would not agree to a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. [3(a) -- Central Sentencing Instruction] You have found John Client guilty of the crime of first degree murder. You must now decide whether Mr. Client will be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. In reaching your decision, you should objectively consider the circumstances of the offense for which Mr. Client has been convicted, and the character and record of Mr. Client himself. Section I Before you would even be authorized to consider imposing a sentence of death rather than life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, you must unanimously find that the prosecution has proved
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the existence of one or more of the aggravating circumstances set forth below: If all of the above are marked "not proven," you must report your findings to the Court. Only if you find the existence of one or more of these factors may you continue, and consider imposing the death sentence. Section II Next you must consider the whether any mitigating circumstances have been shown to exist. A mitigating circumstance is a fact which does not excuse the crime but which, in fairness and in mercy, you should consider as a reason to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence rather than death. John Client does not have to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, you should find a mitigating circumstance to exist if there is any evidence in support of it. Furthermore, you, as individual jurors, must consider mitigating circumstances. Therefore, even if all other eleven jurors find that a certain mitigating circumstance does not exist, if you believe it does exist, you must find that mitigating circumstance, and weigh it in your further deliberations. The following examples of mitigating circumstances are provided by way of illustration. However, you are not bound by the
mitigating circumstances listed here. You may find any fact or combination of facts to be mitigating, as you see fit. You are also required to determine whether there are any other matters, any aspects of John Client's character or record, or any other circumstance of the offense placed before you during the trial of this case which you deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. Section III Each individual juror must weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist against any mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances need not be found to exist by the entire jury, for an individual juror must consider any mitigating circumstance which that juror finds to be present, even if one or all of the other jurors disagree. Only if you find, unanimously, that the aggravating circumstance or circumstances overcome the mitigating circumstances BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT may you proceed to Section IV. If you cannot agree unanimously that this is the case, you should report your finding to the court, and proceed no further with your deliberations. Section IV Finally, each individual juror must decide whether death or life in prison is the appropriate punishment for this crime and for John Client. Even if there are aggravating factors that overcome mitigating factors, or even if there are no mitigating circumstances at all, the law permits the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence out of mercy or a determination that life in prison is sufficient punishment under the circumstances. Only if you, the jurors, unanimously agree BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that death is the appropriate punishment, and that you should not exercise mercy, may you impose the sentence of death. You should indicate your findings on the jury verdict form which you will have with you in the jury deliberation room. [3(b) - Verdict Form] FORM OF THE VERDICT Section I We unanimously find that each of the following aggravating circumstances that is marked "proven" has been proved BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT and we unanimously find that each of the aggravating circumstances marked "not proven" has not been proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. (1)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ [ ] proven beyond a reasonable doubt (2)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ [ ] proven beyond a reasonable doubt (3)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ [ ] proven beyond a reasonable doubt (If one or more of the above is marked "proven," complete Section II. If all of the above are marked "not proven," report your findings to the Court without completing the remainder of this form.) Section II We make the following determinations as to mitigating circumstances: (1)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (2)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (3)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (4)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (5)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (6)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (7)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (8)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (9)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. You are also required to determine whether there are any other matters, any aspects of John Client's character or record, or any other circumstance of the offense placed before you during the trial of this case which you deem to be mitigating on behalf of the defendant. By "mitigating" I mean a factor which does not excuse Mr. Client but which, in fairness and in mercy, should weigh in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence rather than death. Fill in any such factors below, using additional pages if necessary: (10)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (11)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (12)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (13)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (14)
______________________________________________________________________________________________ Mark only one: [ ] (a) We unanimously find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. [ ] (b) We unanimously find that the above circumstance does not exist. [ ] (c) After a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find some evidence that the above circumstance exists. (Note to Jury Members: You should use the reverse of this form to include other factors in mitigation should you find such factors to exist.) Section III Each individual juror shall evaluate the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist in light of any mitigating circumstances found unanimously to exist, as well as against any mitigating circumstances found by that individual juror to exist. Mark only one: [ ] We unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances marked "proven" in Section I overcome the mitigating circumstances found by one or more jurors in Section II. [ ] We unanimously find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating factors marked "proven" in Section I overcome the mitigating circumstances found by one or more jurors in Section II. [ ] We are unable to agree unanimously on whether aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors. [If you marked the first selection above, proceed to Section IV; if you marked the second or the third selection, report your finding to the Court without completing the remainder of this form.] Section IV Each individual juror shall decide whether death or life in prison is the appropriate punishment for this crime and for John Client. Even if aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, the law permits the jury to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence out of mercy or a determination that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence is sufficient punishment under the circumstances. Mark only one of the following: [ ] We unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that death by lethal injection is the appropriate sentence to be passed upon John Client in this case and hereby sentence him to death. [ ] We unanimously find that John Client should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. [ ] We are unable to agree unanimously on punishment. ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ Note to Counsel: This form requires specific findings with regard to each aggravating and each mitigating factor and allows for non-unanimous consideration of mitigating circumstances as required by Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 381-82, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988). This verdict form is based upon the one now required in Maryland in the wake of problems identified by the United States Supreme Court. It follows the Mississippi procedure for weighing aggravating circumstances against mitigating circumstances, and allowing the jury the option of imposing life even if aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors. * See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 381-82, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988). See also McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S. Ct. 1227, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990). In Mills the Court held that "[e]ach individual juror shall weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist with any mitigating circumstances found unanimously to exist, as well as any mitigating circumstances found by that individual juror to exist." Id., 486 U.S. at 382 (emphasis omitted). ÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ [4 -- Individual Decision on Mitigation] John Client does not have to prove the existence of mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, you must find a mitigating circumstance to exist if you find any evidence to support it. Furthermore, you, as individual jurors, must consider mitigating circumstances. Therefore, even if all other eleven jurors find that a certain mitigating circumstance does not exist, if you believe it does exist, you must find that mitigating circumstance, and consider it in your further deliberations. [5 -- Individual Decision on Weighing] Before you may consider imposing the death sentence, each one of you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the totality of the aggravating circumstances overcome the totality of the mitigating circumstances. If each one of you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances overcome the mitigating circumstances, you must return a verdict of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. [6 -- Individual Moral Judgment] The Court instructs the jury that it must be emphasized that the procedure you must follow is not a mere counting process of a certain number of aggravating circumstances versus the number of mitigating circumstances, rather, each individual juror must apply a reasoned moral judgement as to whether this case calls for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence or whether death is the only appropriate punishment. [7 -- Individual Final Decision] Each individual juror must decide for himself or herself whether death or life in prison is the appropriate punishment for John Client. Only if each and every juror finds beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the only appropriate punishment may you impose the sentence of death. [8 -- Pro-Sympathy] The Court instructs the jury that although at the guilt and innocence phase of the trial, you were instructed that you were not to
be swayed by sympathy, at this phase of the trial you are bound by law and your oath as jurors to consider mitigating factors.
Mitigating factors are facts that, while they do not justify or excuse the crime, nevertheless in fairness, sympathy, and mercy to
John Client, must be considered by you as extenuating or reducing the degree of his blame or punishment. You may not,
however, be swayed by prejudice or public opinion. [9 -- Presumption of Life] John Client enters this phase of the trial with the presumption that there are no aggravating circumstances that would warrant a sentence of death, and the presumption that the appropriate punishment in his case would be life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. These presumptions remain with Mr. Client throughout the sentencing hearing, and can only be overcome if the prosecution convinces each one of you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that death is the only appropriate punishment. [10 -- Limitation on Aggravating Circumstances] I have previously read to you the list of aggravating circumstances which the law permits you to consider if you find that any of
them are established by the evidence. These are the only aggravating circumstances you may consider. [11 - Decision Based on Evidence] First and foremost, you must render a decision based on the evidence free from prejudice or passion. Evidence includes the sworn testimony of witnesses, exhibits admitted into evidence, any facts that were judicially noted and any facts that were stipulated to by the parties. It is your recollection of the evidence that controls, not mine, and not the attorneys. Arguments of counsel are not evidence. [12 - Residual Doubt Finding] Before going further in this case, you must again scrutinize the facts and evidence surrounding the death of [victim's name]. While you have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant is responsible for the death, you must now ask if you can say beyond a residual or lingering doubt that the Defendant is the person who killed [victim's name]. A residual doubt is not the same as a reasonable doubt. There may be no reasonable doubt left in your minds. Yet, some genuine doubt may still exist. It may reflect a mere possibility. It may be the mere whimsy of one juror or several. Yet this lingering doubt--the absence of absolute certainty about who killed [victim's name]--can be real. It is that type of doubt that is called residual doubt. Each and every one of you must agree that you are certain beyond a residual doubt that Defendant killed [victim's name] to proceed further in this case. If you are not unanimous about the absence of a residual doubt, deliberations should cease immediately. Your decision must be in writing. If, after viewing all the evidence, you agree that there is a residual doubt whether Defendant killed [victim's name], or that not all of you can say beyond a residual doubt that Defendant killed [victim's name], cease deliberations and return the following form: We, the jury, are unable to say beyond a residual doubt that Defendant killed [victim's name]. If, after viewing all the evidence, each of you agrees that there is not a residual doubt that Defendant killed [victim's name], continue with the steps required by these instructions after entering the following finding: We, the jury, unanimously agree that there is not a residual doubt that Defendant killed [victim's name]. [13 - Alleged Aggravating Circumstances] Before consideration of the appropriate sentence, the first step of your deliberations concerns aggravating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances are those circumstances which may tend to warrant a sentence of death. The fact that Defendant stands convicted of murder is not an aggravating circumstance. There are several possible aggravating circumstances set out in the law. In this case, the state has alleged the existence of only ______ aggravating circumstances: [Note to counsel: keep this section blank. Do nothing to indicate acceptance of any aggravating circumstance. The section can be filled in after the court rules on the applicability of aggravating circumstances in your case (over your objection, of course).] It would be a violation of your oath to consider any other circumstance of the offense or the offender to be aggravating. Instead, you are to consider only the ones that I have identified, and determine whether any is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because the prosecution has alleged that an aggravating circumstance exists, that does not mean that an aggravating circumstance does in fact exist. The allegation does not mean that the existence of an aggravating circumstance is more likely or probable. The allegation is not evidence. It should have no bearing on your consideration and review of the evidence. [14 - Burden of Proof] You are to presume that there are no aggravating circumstances that would warrant a sentence of death. That presumption may be abandoned if and only if the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the particular specified aggravating circumstances exist. [15 - Unanimity Requirement for Aggravators] Any finding that an aggravating circumstance has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt must be unanimous. If any of you, whether it be several or only one, possess a doubt based upon reason concerning what the evidence proves, or the existence of an aggravating circumstance, then you have not reached unanimity. [16 - Aggravating Circumstance Findings] I stress that you must carefully consider each of the alleged aggravating circumstances in the manner that I have instructed. Remember that the fact that the prosecution has alleged that the circumstances exist is not entitled to any weight. To the contrary, you are to presume that they do not exist. That presumption exists unless each and every one of you is convinced that each of the elements of one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts and evidence. It is your duty alone to determine if the prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the alleged aggravating circumstances. If you are unable to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances exists in this case, it is your duty to cease deliberations and return to court with the following written finding: We, the jury, are unable to agree that one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances exists in this case. If you unanimously agree from the evidence that one or more of the specific alleged aggravating circumstances exists beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must make a written finding as to each such circumstance on the verdict form included at the end of these instructions. [17(a) - Definition and Consideration of Mitigating Circumstanc es] If and only if you find that one or more of the alleged aggravating circumstances exist, should you proceed to the next step of the proceeding. Of course, I in no way mean to suggest or imply that you should find that such a circumstance exists or that you should consider any further step in this case. If you do find that an alleged aggravating circumstance was proved, that does not automatically or necessarily mean that you should sentence Defendant to death. Instead, such a finding only means that you must consider other factors before deciding if a sentence of life in prison or death is appropriate. A mitigating circumstance is any aspect of the offense or the offender that, in justice and in mercy, should be considered in favor of a sentence less than death. Justice requires consideration of more than just the bare facts of the crime. Therefore, mitigating circumstances may also stem from any fact connected with the circumstances of the offense or the offender--the defendant's background, his age, his experience, his character, his demeanor, his family or any other facet of his life--that you believe or feel weighs against a sentence of death. It is your duty to carefully and fully consider any and all circumstances in mitigation. It is important that you understand the role of mitigating circumstances in a capital case and how they differ from circumstances in aggravation. Since you, the jury, cannot be limited in your consideration of mitigating circumstances, there can be no exhaustive list such as the list of only four aggravating circumstances. This does not mean that mitigating circumstances are less important than aggravating circumstances. To the contrary, mitigating circumstances are central in determining what punishment is appropriate in this case. However, mitigating circumstances do differ from aggravating circumstances because you are not required to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a mitigating circumstance exists before you must take that circumstance into account as you deliberate this case. You must consider a mitigating circumstance if you believe that there is any evidence to support it. Neither are you bound to all agree on the existence of a mitigating circumstance, as you are with an aggravating circumstance. To the contrary, you must--as an individual juror--find a mitigating circumstance to be present if you believe there is any evidence to support it, even if one or all of the other jurors disagree with you. This is a wholly individual decision on your part. [17(b) - Definition and Consideration of Mitigating Circumstanc es] The consideration of mitigating circumstances is very different from the consideration of the aggravating circumstance charged in this case. With an aggravating circumstance all twelve jurors must agree that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not true with a mitigating circumstance. First, the existence of a mitigating circumstance does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You should take into consideration any evidence of a mitigating circumstance. Second, even if eleven jurors believe that a mitigating circumstance does not exist, the twelfth juror may disagree and find that it does exist. If this is so, then that juror should individually consider the mitigating circumstance in deciding whether to vote for a death sentence or a sentence of life imprisonment without benefit of probation, parole, or suspension of sentence. Each individual juror shall weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist with any mitigating circumstances found to exist either by the jury as a whole, or by that individual juror. * See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367, 381-82, 108 S. Ct. 1860, 100 L. Ed. 2d 384 (1988) (approving verdict form where the jurors are told that "after a reasonable period of deliberation, one or more of us, but fewer than all 12, find . . . that the above [mitigating] circumstance exists"; "Each individual juror shall weigh the aggravating circumstances found unanimously to exist with any mitigating circumstances found unanimously to exist, as well as any mitigating circumstances found by that individual juror to exist") (emphasis in original); McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 110 S. Ct. 1227, 108 L. Ed. 2d 369 (1990). [18 - Definition of Mitigating Circumstances] I charge you that you must consider the mitigating circumstances offered by Mr. CLIENT. The list of mitigating circumstances proffered cannot limit your deliberations, since you are free to consider any aspect of the crime or of Mr. CLIENT's character as mitigating in your sole discretion. The following are therefore offered solely as examples of factors which you might consider to be mitigating: (a) Mr. CLIENT has no significant history of prior criminal activity. (b) the offense was committed while Mr. CLIENT was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance. (c) the capacity of Mr. CLIENT to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was impaired at the time of the offense. (d) Mr. CLIENT has a low intelligence quotient. (e) Mr. CLIENT was only nineteen at the time of the offense. (f) the offense was committed while Mr. CLIENT was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. (g) Mr. CLIENT's involvement with alcohol and drugs was initiated by his father when Mr. CLIENT was very young. (h) Mr. CLIENT was an accomplice in the offense and the offense was committed by another. (i) Mr. CLIENT acted under duress in committing the offense. (j) Mr. CLIENT is married and has consistently worked to support his wife and children. (k) Mr. CLIENT's wife and children want his life to be spared. (l) Mr. CLIENT has expressed remorse for his involvement in the offense. (m) Mr. CLIENT turned himself in to the police. (n) Mr. CLIENT will never be eligible for parole, probation or suspension of sentence. (o) Mr. CLIENT has found the Lord and wishes to have the opportunity to reform his life and atone for his sins. (p) any other aspect of the crime or of the character of Mr. CLIENT which you, the jury, believe should militate in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. I emphasize again that this list is intended solely to provide examples of the nature and importance of mitigating circumstances, and cannot limit you in your consideration of factors which you consider to be mitigating. [19 - Residual Doubt] I stress that the fact that Defendant stands convicted of murder is not a circumstance in aggravation. It does not automatically nor necessarily warrant a sentence of death. In fact, your verdict does not end your responsibility for viewing the facts and evidence surrounding the death of [name of victim]. While you have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant is responsible for his death, you must now ask if you can say beyond even a residual or lingering doubt that Defendant is the person who killed [name of victim]. Residual doubt differs from reasonable doubt. There may be no reasonable doubt left in your minds. Yet, some genuine doubt may still exist. It may reflect a mere possibility. It may be the mere whimsy of one juror or several. Yet this whimsical doubt--the absence of absolute certainty about who stabbed [name of victim]--can be real. It is that type of doubt that is called residual doubt. As a matter of law, unless each and every one of you can say with certainty that you do not possess a residual doubt as to the identity of the victim's killer, then you must consider the existence of such a residual doubt as a mitigating circumstance that warrants a sentence of life in prison rather than death. [20 - Consideration of Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances] Once you have considered the existence of mitigating circumstances, there may be a third step of the penalty phase process. Again, by explaining this step of the process, I in no way intend to suggest that it is necessary or even appropriate for you to go this far in your deliberations. However, if based on your scrutiny of the evidence and consideration of the Court's instructions you do reach this step, it would now be necessary for you to consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances together, one in light of the other. Your consideration cannot be limited to a numerical weighing or comparison to see if aggravating outnumber mitigating or vice versa. Instead, you must examine the mitigating and aggravating circumstances to determine their quality and weight. You may find that a sentence of death is inappropriate even if there is only a single mitigating circumstance and multiple aggravating circumstances. You may also find that death is not warranted even though there are one or more aggravating circumstances and not a single mitigating circumstance. You are not required to find any mitigating circumstance in order to return a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Nor does the finding of an aggravating circumstance require that you return a sentence of death. You, as a juror, always have the option to sentence the defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence, whatever findings you may make. [21(a) - Mercy and Life Option] If based upon your consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, each and every one of you agrees that death is the appropriate sentence, you must still consider the final step of the penalty phase process. Just as you are the sole judges of the facts, so too are you the sole arbiters of mercy. Regardless of your consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, as the jury, you always have the option to recommend against death. This means that even if you conclude that death is an appropriate sentence based on your consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, you may still show mercy and sentence Mr. CLIENT to life in prison. As a jury, this option to recommend life must always be considered by each and every one of you before an ultimate and irrevocable sentence may be passed. [21(b) - Mercy and Life Option] The Court instructs the jury that there is nothing which would suggest that the decision to afford an individual Defendant mercy and thereby sentence him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence violates the laws of this state or your oath as jurors, and even if you find there are no mitigating circumstances in this case which are worthy of your consideration, or if you find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt, then, nevertheless, you still may sentence John Client to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. [21(c) - Mercy and Life Option] The Court instructs the jury that a recommendation of life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence does not require a basis in the evidence. Rather, each individual juror always has the option to recommend mercy for any reason, or for no reason at all. * See State v. Myles, 389 So. 2d 12, 19 (La. 1980) (the jury always has the option to recommend life, and must understand that a "recommendation of life imprisonment did not require a basis in the evidence presented to it"). [22 - Burden of Proof] I instruct you as a matter of law that before you may return a sentence of death, each and every one of you must be convinced that the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the only appropriate sentence in the case. If you do not make this finding, you may not sentence Mr. CLIENT to death. [23 - Unanimity and Manner of Deliberation] You should begin each step of your deliberations with an open mind but conscious of your awesome responsibilities as jurors. Consult with one another and consider each other's views. Each of you must decide this case for yourself. You should examine the issues and questions submitted with candor and fairness, and with a proper regard for, consideration of and deference to, the opinions of each other. You should examine your differences in a spirit of fairness and candor. Do not hesitate to change an opinion if you are convinced that it is wrong. Never, however, surrender honest convictions or opinions for the sake of harmony and consensus, or because it would be convenient and easy. You should never sacrifice an opinion or view that is conscientiously held because it is not shared by the majority. Nor should you sacrifice an opinion or view merely to conform with others or reach a decision in this case. In particular you should never surrender your view on the weight of the mitigating circumstances concerning John Client. If
you, as an individual juror, find a particular fact to be mitigating, you must, under the law, weigh that mitigating circumstance in
your own determination of punishment, even if no other juror does so. [24 - Verdict Form: Unable to Agree] If after a reasonable and conscientious consideration of the evidence, and your duties as jurors, you cannot reach a unanimous decision concerning the existence of an aggravating sentence, or about the appropriateness of sentencing Mr. CLIENT to life in prison or death, you must cease deliberations and notify the Court in the following written form: We, the jury, are not able to reach a unanimous decision concerning the [existence of an aggravating circumstance] / [appropriateness of sentencing Mr. CLIENT to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence or to death]. [25 - Verdict Form: Life Sentence] If, after careful and full consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, or for whatever other reason, you, as jurors, reach a unanimous decision that it would not be appropriate to sentence Defendant to death, you must cease deliberations and enter your decision in the following written form: We, the jury, reach a unanimous decision that Mr. CLIENT be sentenced to life in prison. [26 -- Verdict Form: Death Sentence] If, after careful and full consideration of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the other principles that I have instructed you on, you unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence for Defendant, you may your decision in the following written form: We, the jury, unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate sentence for Mr. CLIENT. [27 - Life is Life; Death is Death] The Court instructs the jury that there are two possible punishments at this phase of the trial, death and life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. Your sentence of death means that you have ordered
that John Client be executed by lethal injection; your sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, probation
or suspension of sentence means that you have sentenced Mr. Client to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. (..continued)
|