Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. 00-cr-00531-WYD-2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 2. RUDY CABRERA SABLAN, Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 2 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 1 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE BURDEN OF PROOF - REASONABLE DOUBT The indictment or formal charge against the defendant is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the defendant is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must find the defendant not guilty. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. It is only required that the government's proof exclude any "reasonable doubt" concerning the defendant's guilt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all evidence in the case. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

1.05 Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal Cases, Tenth Circuit (2005)

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 3 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 2 FIRST DEGREE MURDER - ELEMENTS The defendant is charged with first degree murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111. Section 1111 makes it a crime to unlawfully kill a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder committed by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing, is murder in the first degree. To find the defendant guilty of this crime you must be convinced that the government has proved each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: First: the defendant caused the death of Joey Jesus Estrella; Second: the defendant killed Mr. Estrella with malice aforethought; Third: the killing was premeditated; Fourth: the killing took place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; Fifth: the defendant did not act upon sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation. To kill "with malice aforethought" means either to kill another person deliberately and intentionally, or to act recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. To find malice aforethought, you need not be convinced that the defendant hated Mr. Estrella or felt ill will toward him at the time. In determining whether the killing was with malice aforethought, you may consider the use of a weapon or instrument, and the manner in which death was caused.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 4 of 16

A killing is "premeditated" when it is the result of planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough for the killer, after forming the intent to kill, to be fully conscious of that intent. You should consider all the facts and circumstances preceding, surrounding, and following the killing, which tend to shed light upon the condition of the defendant's mind, before and at the time of the killing. You are instructed that the alleged murder of Mr. Estrella occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that such offense occurred in the location described in the indictment. That location is the Special Housing Unit of the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. You have heard evidence that Rudy Sablan was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the offense charged in the indictment. Evidence of intoxication also may or may not be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt whether the defendant had the capacity of forming the requisite premeditation to commit first degree murder. Evidence that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime may be considered by you, together with all the other evidence, in determining whether or not defendant did, in fact, have the capacity to form premeditation.

Court's Instruction No. 16, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (modified to remove references to self-defense and mental disease or defect)

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 5 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 3 LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES - GENERALLY If you unanimously find that the government has proven each and every essential element of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, your foreperson should check "guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form and your consideration of the indictment is concluded. However, the law also permits you to determine whether the government has proven the guilt of the defendant for any less serious offense which is, by its very nature, necessarily included in the crime of first degree murder. If you unanimously find that the government has not proven each and every element of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then your foreperson should check "not guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form and you should then consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the less serious offenses necessarily included in the offense of first degree murder. Furthermore, if after reasonable efforts, you are unable to reach a verdict as to whether the government has proven each and every element of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you should then consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the less serious offenses which are necessarily included in first degree murder. The crime of first degree murder necessarily includes two less serious offenses: second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The crimes differ in the following respects: First degree murder requires proof of premeditation whereas second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter do not.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 6 of 16

Premeditation has been previously defined. Second degree murder requires proof of malice aforethought. Malice aforethought has been previously defined. It requires proof that the defendant did not act upon sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; if he did act upon sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, the crime is no greater than voluntary manslaughter. A difference between second degree murder and manslaughter is that manslaughter does not require the government to prove malice aforethought. You should bear in mind that the burden is always on the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of any lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime of first degree murder. The law never imposes a burden of proof upon the defendant.

Court's Instruction No. 19, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (modified to remove references to involuntary manslaughter)

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 7 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 4 SECOND DEGREE MURDER - ELEMENTS If you unanimously find the defendant not guilty of first degree murder, or if, after all reasonable efforts, you are unable to agree on a verdict as to that offense, then you must determine whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of second degree murder. For you to find the defendant guilty of second degree murder, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First: the defendant caused the death of Joey Jesus Estrella; Second: the defendant killed Mr. Estrella with malice aforethought; Third: the killing took place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; Fourth: the defendant did not act upon sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation. The terms "malice aforethought" and "heat of passion" are defined elsewhere in the instructions. You are instructed that the alleged murder of Mr. Estrella occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that such offense occurred in the location described in the indictment. That location is the Special Housing Unit of the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. You are instructed that intoxication is not a defense to second degree murder.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 8 of 16

If you unanimously find that the government has proven each and every essential element of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, your foreperson should check "guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form and your consideration of the indictment is concluded. If you determine unanimously that the government has not proven each and every element of the lesser offense of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then the foreperson should check "not guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form and you should consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, if after reasonable efforts, you are unable to reach a verdict as to whether the government has proven each and every element of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you should then consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the less serious offense of voluntary manslaughter.

Court's Instruction No. 20, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (modified to remove references to self-defense and mental disease or defect)

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 9 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 5 VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - ELEMENTS For you to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First: the defendant killed Joey Jesus Estrella; Second: the defendant acted unlawfully; Third: while in sudden quarrel or heat of passion, and therefore without malice, the defendant: (a) intentionally killed Joey Jesus Estrella; or (b) intended to cause Mr. Estrella serious bodily injury; or (c) acted recklessly with extreme disregard for human life; Fourth: the killing took place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. The term "intentionally killed" as used in this instruction means either 1. a specific purpose to take the life of another human being, or 2. a willingness to act knowing that the death of another human being is practically certain to follow from that conduct. The term "heat of passion" has been previously defined. You are instructed that the alleged murder of Mr. Estrella occurred within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that such offense occurred in the location described in the indictment. That location is the Special Housing Unit of the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 10 of 16

You are instructed that intoxication is not a defense to voluntary manslaughter. If you unanimously find that the government has proven each and every essential element of voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, your foreperson should check "guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form and your consideration of the indictment is concluded. If you determine unanimously that the government has not proven each and every element of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, then the foreperson should check "not guilty" in the space provided on the verdict form.

Court's Instruction No. 21, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (modified to remove references to self-defense, mental disease or defect, and involuntary manslaughter)

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 11 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 6 AIDING AND ABETTING A person may violate the law even though he does not personally do each and every act constituting the offense charged, if he "aided and abetted" the commission of the offense. Rudy Sablan has been charged as a principal and alternatively as an aider and abettor for each of the offenses described above. 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) provides that: "Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal." In order to sustain its burden of proof for aiding and abetting, the government must prove the following three (3) essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First: the offense of first degree murder, or alternatively second degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter, was committed by some other person; Second: the defendant knowingly did some act for the purpose of aiding the other person in the commission of first degree murder or alternatively second degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter; and Third: the defendant acted with the intent required for the crime of first degree murder (premeditation and malice aforethought) or alternatively second degree murder (malice aforethought), or voluntary manslaughter (acting upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion). The defendant need not perform the underlying criminal act, be present when it is performed, or be aware of the details of its commission to be guilty of aiding and abetting. On the other hand, merely being present at the scene of the crime or merely

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 12 of 16

knowing that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed is not sufficient conduct for you to find that the defendant aided and abetted in the commission of that crime. A general suspicion that an unlawful act may occur or that something criminal is happening is also not enough for you to find that the defendant aided and abetted in the crime. The government must prove that the defendant knowingly and deliberately associated himself with the crime in some way as a participant--someone who wanted the crime to be committed--not as a mere spectator.

Court's Instruction No. 23, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (modified to remove references to involuntary manslaughter).

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 13 of 16

GOVERNMENT'S DISPUTED INSTRUCTION NO. 7 PROOF OF KNOWLEDGE OR INTENT The intent of a person or the knowledge that a person possesses at any given time may not ordinarily be proved directly because there is no way of directly scrutinizing the workings of the human mind. In determining the issue of what a person knew or what a person intended at a particular time, you may consider any statements made or acts done by that person and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence which may aid in your determination of that person's knowledge or intent. You may infer, but you are certainly not required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done. It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts to find from the evidence received during this trial.

O'Malley, Grenig, and Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Fifth Edition, 2000, § 17.07

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 14 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. 00-cr-00531-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUDY CABRERA SABLAN, Defendant.

SPECIAL VERDICT FORM [DISPUTED]

I.

FIRST DEGREE MURDER - As Charged We, the jury, upon our oaths, unanimously find the defendant, RUDY CABRERA

SABLAN: Not Guilty Guilty of first degree murder as charged in the indictment. If you found the defendant not guilty of first degree murder or are unable to reach a verdict as to first degree murder, proceed to Section II. If you found the defendant guilty of first degree murder, skip Sections II through III and sign and date the Verdict Form. II. SECOND DEGREE MURDER - Lesser Included Offense We, the jury, upon our oaths, unanimously find the defendant, RUDY CABRERA SABLAN:

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 15 of 16

Not Guilty Guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder, which is necessarily included in the crime of first degree murder charged in the indictment. If you found the defendant not guilty of second degree murder or are unable to reach a verdict as to second degree murder, proceed to Section III. If you found the defendant guilty of second degree murder, skip Section III and sign and date the verdict form. III. VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER - Lesser Included Offense We, the jury, upon our oaths, unanimously find the defendant, RUDY CABRERA SABLAN: Not Guilty Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, which is necessarily included in the crimes of first degree murder and second degree murder charged in the indictment.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2759

Filed 03/05/2008

Page 16 of 16

Dated this

day of

2008.

FOREPERSON