Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 38

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 JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND VERDICT FORM - LIABILITY PHASE _____________________________________________________________________

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 1 INTRODUCTION TO FINAL INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Jury: Now that you have heard all of the evidence that is to be received in this trial and before hearing the arguments of counsel, it is the duty of the Court to give you the final instructions as to the law that is applicable to this case. You should use these instructions to guide you in your decisions. Each of you will have a copy of these instructions for your reference during your deliberations. All of the instructions of law given to you by the Court ­ those given to you at the beginning of the trial, those given to you during the trial, and these final instructions ­ must guide and govern your deliberations. It is your duty as jurors to follow the law as stated in all of the instructions of the Court and to apply these rules of law to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence received during the trial. Counsel may quite properly refer to some of the applicable rules of law in their closing arguments to you. If, however, any difference appears to you between the law as stated by counsel and that as stated by the Court in these instructions, you, of course, are to be governed by the instructions given to you by the Court. You are not to single out any one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole in reaching your decision. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by the Court. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base any part of your verdict upon any other

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 3 of 38

view or opinion of the law than that given in these instructions of the Court just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as the judges of the facts, to base your verdict upon anything but the evidence received in the case. You were chosen as jurors for this trial in order to evaluate all of the evidence received and to decide each of the factual questions presented by the allegations brought by the government in the indictment and the plea of not guilty by the defendant. You are expected to carefully and impartially consider all the evidence, follow the law as stated by the Court, and reach a just verdict. You must not be persuaded by bias, prejudice, or sympathy for or against either party to this case or by any public opinion. In determining the facts, you must rely upon your own recollections of the testimony heard by you. You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts. What counsel for the parties have said in their opening statements, evidentiary objections or in their questioning of witnesses or what they may say in their closing arguments does not constitute evidence. Nothing that the Court may have said during the trial or may say in these instructions should be considered as evidence or as any comment on the evidence. The rulings the Court has made, and any comments and questions to counsel or to witnesses, must not be taken as expressing any opinions about the facts in this case. You are expressly instructed that the Court has no opinion as to what the verdict should be in this case. Justice ­ through trial by jury ­ depends upon the willingness of each individual juror to seek the truth from the same evidence presented to all the jurors here in the

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 4 of 38

courtroom and to arrive at a verdict by applying the same rules of law as now being given to each of you in these instructions of the Court.

Court's Instruction No. 1, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 5 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 2 DUTY TO FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS As stated in the previous instruction, you, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. It is your duty as jurors to follow the law as stated in all of the instructions of the Court and to apply these rules of law to the facts as you find them to be from the evidence received during the trial. You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you. It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

Court's Instruction No. 2, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 6 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 3 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 7 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 4 EVIDENCE IN THE CASE The evidence in this case consists of sworn testimony of the witnesses (regardless of who may have called them), all exhibits received in evidence (regardless of who may have produced them), stipulations that counsel agreed to (although you are not required to accept the stipulation as evidence and regard that fact as proven, because you are the sole judges of the facts), and facts that I have judicially noticed. Nothing else is evidence. Counsel's statements and arguments are not evidence. Their questions and objections are not evidence. My legal rulings are not evidence. And my comments and questions are not evidence. Any proposed testimony or proposed exhibit to which I sustained an objection and any testimony or exhibits I have ordered stricken must be disregarded entirely. You must completely disregard such proposed, but rejected, evidence. Do not speculate about what a witness might have said or what an exhibit might have shown. These things are not evidence, and you are bound by your oath not to let them influence your decision in any way. Anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence in this case and must be disregarded entirely. You are to base your verdict only on the evidence received in the case. There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the testimony of a person who asserts or claims to have actual knowledge of a fact, such as an ear- or eyewitness. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of acts and circumstances

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 8 of 38

indicating the existence of a fact. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. You should weigh all of the evidence in the case. While you must consider only the evidence in this case, you are permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits, inferences you feel are justified in light of common experience. An inference is a conclusion that reason and common sense may lead you to draw from facts which have been proved. By permitting such reasonable inferences, you may make deductions and reach conclusions that reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in this case.

Court's Instruction No. 4, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 9 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 5 JURY'S RECOLLECTION CONTROLS If any reference by the Court or by counsel to matters of testimony or exhibits does not coincide with your own recollection of that evidence, it is your recollection which should control during your deliberations and not the statements of the Court or of counsel. You are the sole judges of the evidence received in this case.

Court's Instruction No. 5, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 10 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 6 RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY The defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right under our Constitution not to testify, but to remain silent. The fact that Rudy Sablan did not testify in this case must not be discussed or considered in any way when deliberating and in arriving at your verdict. You must not presume or infer guilt from the fact that he decided to exercise his privilege under the Constitution and did not testify. To do so would violate your oath as jurors. As stated before, the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or of producing any evidence.

Court's Instruction No. 6, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 11 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 7 CREDIBILITY You, as jurors, are the sole and exclusive judges of the credibility of each of the witnesses called to testify in this case and only you determine the importance of the weight that their testimony deserves. After making your assessment concerning the credibility of a witness, you may decide to believe all of that witness's testimony, only a portion of it, or none of it. In making your assessment you should carefully scrutinize all of the testimony given by the witness, the circumstances under which each witness has testified, and every matter in evidence which tends to show whether a witness, in your opinion, is worthy of belief. Consider each witness's intelligence, motive to falsify, state of mind, and appearance and manner while on the witness stand. Consider the witness's ability to observe the matters as to which he or she has testified and consider whether he or she impresses you as having an accurate memory or recollection of these matters. Consider also any relation a witness may bear to either side of the case, the manner in which each witness might be affected by your verdict, and the extent to which, if at all, each witness is either supported by or contradicted by other evidence in the case. Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness or between the testimony of different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve or discredit such testimony. Two or more persons witnessing an incident or a transaction may simply see or hear it differently. Innocent misrecollection, like failure of recollection, is not an uncommon experience. In weighing the effect of a discrepancy, however, always consider whether it pertains to a matter of importance or an insignificant detail

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 12 of 38

and consider whether the discrepancy results from innocent error or from intentional falsehood. After making your own judgment or assessment concerning the believability of a witness, you can then attach such importance or weight to that testimony, if any, that you feel it deserves. You will then be in a position to decide whether the government has proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court's Instruction No. 7, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 13 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 8 IMPEACHMENT BY FELONY The testimony of a witness may be discredited or impeached by showing that the witness previously has been convicted of a felony, that is, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year or of a crime of dishonesty or false statement. A prior conviction does not mean that a witness is not qualified to testify, but is merely one circumstance that you may consider in determining the credibility of the witness. You may decide how much weight to give any prior felony conviction or crime of dishonesty or false statement that was used to impeach a witness.

Court's Instruction No. 8, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 14 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 9 IMPEACHMENT BY INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS A witness's testimony may be discredited or impeached by evidence that at some other time he or she made statements which are inconsistent with the witness's present testimony in court. As judges of the facts, it is up to you to determine the credibility, if any, to be given the testimony of a witness who has made prior inconsistent or contradictory statements.

Court's Instruction No. 9, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 15 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 10 VOLUNTARINESS OF STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT Evidence relating to alleged statements by a defendant outside of court and after a crime has been committed should always be considered by the jury with great caution and weighed with great care. All such alleged statements should be disregarded entirely unless the other evidence in the case convinces you by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was made knowingly and voluntarily. In determining whether any statement alleged to have been made by Rudy Sablan was knowingly and voluntarily made, you should consider the defendant's age, training, education, occupation, and physical and mental condition while in custody or under interrogation as shown by the evidence in the case. You should also consider all other circumstances in evidence surrounding the making of the alleged statement or statements. If after considering the evidence you determine that a statement was made knowingly and voluntarily, you may give it such weight as you feel it deserves under the circumstances.

Court's Instruction No. 10, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase (burden of proof changed to "preponderance of the evidence" per 1.25 at 1.05.01 Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal Cases, Tenth Circuit (2005))

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 16 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 11 EXPERT WITNESSES In some cases, such as this one, scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge may assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue. A witness who has knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, may testify and state an opinion concerning such matters. You may accept such an opinion in whole or in part, or reject it in whole or in part. You should consider opinion testimony just as you consider other testimony in this trial. Give opinion testimony as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the education and experience of the witness, the soundness of the reasons given for the opinion, and other evidence in the trial.

Court's Instruction No. 11, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 17 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 12 INDICTMENT The charge in this case is contained in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury. The indictment charges that on or about October 10, 1999, in the State and District of Colorado, at the Special Housing Unit, United States Penitentiary, Florence, Colorado, a place within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, the defendants William Sablan and Rudy Sablan, with premeditation and malice aforethought, unlawfully, willfully, deliberately and maliciously killed Joey Jesus Estrella, a human being, and did aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, and procure each other's participation in the commission of said offense. The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), which provides, in pertinent part, that: "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every . . . willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing . . . is murder in the firstdegree."

Court's Instruction No. 12, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 18 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 13 INDICTMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE An indictment is but a formal method used by the government to accuse a defendant of a crime. It is not evidence of any kind against a defendant. The defendant is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged. Even though this indictment has been returned against the defendant, the defendant begins this trial with absolutely no evidence against him. The defendant has pleaded "Not Guilty" to this indictment and, therefore, denies that he is guilty of the charge.

Court's Instruction No. 13, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 19 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 14 "ON OR ABOUT" EXPLAINED The indictment charges that the offense was committed "on or about" a certain date. Although it is necessary for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged in the indictment, it is not necessary for the government to prove that the offense was committed precisely on the date charged.

Court's Instruction No. 14, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 20 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 15 CONSIDER ONLY CRIME CHARGED You are here to decide whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The defendant is not on trial for any act, conduct, or crime not charged in the indictment. It is not up to you to decide whether anyone who is not on trial in this case should be prosecuted for the crime charged. The fact that another person also may be guilty is no defense to a criminal charge.

Court's Instruction No. 15, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 21 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 16 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 22 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 23 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 17 "HEAT OF PASSION" DEFINED You have heard evidence that Rudy Sablan was acting upon sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation. The term "heat of passion" means a passion, fear or rage in which the defendant loses his normal self-control, as a result of circumstances that provoke such a passion in an ordinary person, but which did not justify the use of deadly force. It is such a state of passion, or hot blood, or rage, anger, resentment or fear as to indicate the absence of deliberate design to kill or as to cause one to act on impulse without reflection.

Court's Instruction No. 18, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 24 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 18 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 25 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 26 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 19 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 27 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 28 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 20 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 29 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 30 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 21 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 five (5) 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 31 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 32 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 22 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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 33 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 23 DUTY TO DELIBERATE - VERDICT FORM After closing arguments the Court Security Officer will escort you to the jury room and provide each of you with a copy of the instructions that I have just read. Any exhibits admitted into evidence will also be placed in the jury room for your review. When you go to the jury room, you should first select a foreperson, who will help to guide your deliberations and will speak for you here in the courtroom. The second thing you should do is review the instructions. Not only will your deliberations be more productive if you understand the legal principles upon which your verdict must be based, but for your verdict to be valid, you must follow the instructions throughout your deliberations. Remember, you are the judges of the facts, but you are bound by your oath to follow the law stated in the instructions. To reach a verdict, whether it is guilty or not guilty, all of you must agree. Your verdict must be unanimous. Your deliberations will be secret. You will never have to explain your verdict to anyone. You must consult with one another and deliberate in an effort to reach agreement if you can do so. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. During your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own opinions and change your mind if convinced that you were wrong. But do not give up your honest beliefs solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Remember at all times, you are judges--judges of the facts. You must decide whether the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 34 of 38

The punishment should not be considered by the jury in any way in arriving at an impartial verdict. A form of verdict has been prepared for your convenience. [Explain the Verdict Form] The foreperson will write the unanimous answer of the jury in the space provided, either guilty or not guilty. At the conclusion of your deliberations, the foreperson should date and sign the verdict, and all other jurors shall sign the verdict.

Court's Instruction No. 24, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 35 of 38

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 24 COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT If you want to communicate with me at any time during your deliberations, please write down your message or question and give it to the Court Security Officer, who will bring it to my attention. I will respond as promptly as possible, either in writing or by having you return to the courtroom so that I can address you orally. I caution you, however, that with any message or question you might send, you should not tell me any details of your deliberations or indicate how many of you are voting in a particular way on any issue. Let me remind you again that nothing I have said in these instructions, nor anything I have said or done during the trial, was meant to suggest to you what I think your decision should be. That is your exclusive responsibility.

Court's Instruction No. 25, William Sablan trial, Liability Phase

Case 1:00-cr-00531-WYD

Document 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 36 of 38

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

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 37 of 38

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 2736

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 38 of 38

Dated this

day of

2008.

FOREPERSON