Jurors Sworn and Pre-Instructed

Guilt Phase

June 1, 2004

JUDGE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. The record should reflect the defendant is present with counsel. The first order of business this morning is, we're going to have to swear the jury to try the cause. So if all would please rise, and the clerk will swear you.
CLERK: Raise your right hand. Do you and each of you understand and agree that you will well and truly try the cause now pending before this court, and a true verdict render according only to the evidence presented to you and to the instructions of the Court? Respond with "I do".
JURORS, UNISON: I do.
CLERK: Be seated.
JUDGE: Okay. What I am going to do this morning, I'm going to pre-instruct you with respect to certain issues during this trial that you would be called on to resolve. And you will hear these all over again. These are only part of the instructions, but they are very important. And I wanted to instruct you now about some of the evidence that you are going to hear first of all. Members and alternate members of the jury, you have been selected and sworn as jurors and alternate jurors. I shall now instruct you as to your basic functions, duties, and conduct. At the conclusion of the case I will give you further instructions on the law.

All of the Court's instructions, whether given before, during or after the taking of testimony are of equal importance. You must base the decision you make on the facts and the law.
First, you must determine the facts from the evidence received in the trial, and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence or by a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement between the attorneys regarding the facts.

Second, you must apply the law that I state to you to the facts as you determine them, and in this way arrive at your verdict and any finding you are instructed to include in your verdict. You must accept and follow the law as I state it to you regardless of whether you agree with it or not. If anything concerning the law said by the attorneys in their arguments or at any other time during the trial conflicts with my instructions on the law, you must follow my instructions.

You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant, or by prejudice against him. You must not be biased against the defendant because he has been arrested for this offense, charged with a crime or brought to trial. None of these circumstances is evidence of guilt, and you must not infer or assume from any or all them that he is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.

During the guilt phase of this trial, you must not be influenced by mere sentiment, conjecture, sympathy, passion, prejudice, public opinion or public feeling. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will conscientiously consider and weigh the evidence, apply the law, and reach a just verdict regardless of the consequences.

Statements made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys stipulate or agree to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven as to the party or parties making the stipulation.

If an objection is sustained to a question, do not guess what the answer might have been. Do not speculate as to the reason for the objection. Do not assume to be true any insinuation suggested by a question asked a witness. A question is not evidence, and may be considered only as it helps you understand the answer.

Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that is rejected, or any evidence that is stricken by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard it.

You must not independently investigate the facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information.

You must not converse among yourselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial except when all the following conditions exist:

A) the case has been submitted to you for your decision by the Court following arguments by counsel and jury instructions;

B) you are discussing the case with a fellow juror; and,

C) all twelve jurors and no other persons are present in the jury deliberating room.

You must not read or listen to any accounts or discussions of the case reported by the newspapers or other news media, including radio, television, internet, or any other electronic source.

You have been given notebooks and pencils. Leave them on your seat when you leave each day and at each recess. You will be able to take them into the jury room when you deliberate. A word of caution. You may take notes. However, you should not permit note taking to distract you from the ongoing proceedings.

Remember, you are the judges of the believability of the witnesses. Notes are only an aid to memory, and should not take precedence over recollection. A juror who does not take notes should rely on his or her recollection of the evidence and not be influenced by the fact that other jurors do take notes. Notes are for the note taker's own personal use in refreshing his or her recollection of the evidence. Should a discrepancy exist between a juror's recollection of the evidence and a juror's notes, or between a juror's recollection and that of another, you have a right to and may request that the reporter read back the relevant testimony, which must prevail.

You will be permitted to separate at recesses. You must return following recesses at such time as I instruct. During recesses you must not discuss with anyone any subject connected with this trial.

As for the alternate jurors, you are bound by all of those admonitions. You must not converse among yourselves, or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion upon it until the case is submitted to you, which means until such time as you are substituted in for one of the twelve jurors and begin deliberating on this case. This means that you must not decide how you would vote if you were deliberating with the other jurors, and that you must not form or express an opinion about this case unless and until you have been substituted in as a juror in this case.

You must not visit or view the premises or place where the crime or crimes charged were allegedly committed, or any other premises or place mentioned or involved in this case.

During the course of this trial, and before you begin your deliberations, you must keep an open mind on this case and upon all the of the issues that you will be asked to decide. In other words, you must not form or express any opinion on this case until the matter is finally submitted to you.

Before and within ninety days of your discharge as a juror in this matter, you must not request, accept, agree to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or accepting any payment or benefit in consideration for supplying any information concerning the trial.

You must promptly report to the Court any incidents within your knowledge involving an attempt by any person either to improperly influence any member of the jury, or to tell a juror his or her view of the evidence of the case.

At this time the lawyers will be permitted to make an opening statement if they choose to do. An opening statement is not evidence; neither is it an argument. Counsel are not permitted to argue the case at this point in the proceedings. An opening statement is simply an outline of what he or she believes or expects the evidence will show in this trial. Its sole purpose to assist you in understanding the case as it is presented to you.

You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source. When a witness has testified through a Certified Interpreter, you must accept the English interpretation of that testimony even if you would have translated the foreign language differently.

You must not independently investigate facts or the law, or consider or discuss facts as to which there is no evidence. This means, for example, that you must not, on your own, visit the scene, conduct experiments, or consult reference works or persons for additional information. You must not discuss this case with any other person, including your spouse, except a fellow juror during deliberations, when all twelve jurors are together in the jury room, then only after the case is submitted to you for your decision, and only when twelve jurors are present in the jury room.

There is just a few more here. Remember when you were being voir dired we went into this issue of direct and circumstantial evidence? I'm going to instruct you on that now so you know what we're talking about. You will hear it again before we ask you to decide this case.

Evidence consists of the testimony of witnesses, writings, material objects, or anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact. Evidence is either direct or circumstantial circumstantial.

Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which, by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.

It is not necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They also may be proved by circumstantial evidence, or by a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proof. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other. However, a finding of guilt as to any crime may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances are not only, (1) consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, (2) cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. 

Further, each fact which is essential to meet a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance on which the inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence as to any particular count permits two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the defendant's guilt and the other to his innocence, you must adopt that interpretation that points to the defendant's innocence and reject that interpretation that points to his guilt.

If on the other hand, one interpretation of this evidence appeared to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.
Every person who testifies under oath or affirmation is a witness, and you are the sole judges of the believability of a witness and the weight to be given the testimony of each witness.

In determining the believability of a witness, you may consider anything that has a tendency reasonably to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the testimony of the witness including, but not limited to, any of the following:

• The extent of the opportunity or ability of the witness to see, or hear, or otherwise become aware of any matter about which the witness testified;

• The ability of the witness to remember or to communicate any matter about which the witness has testified;

• The character and quality of that testimony;

• The demeanor and manner of the witness while testifying;

• The existence or nonexistence of a bias, interest, or other motive;

• The existence or nonexistence of any fact testified to by the witness;

• The attitude of the witness toward this action or toward the giving of testimony;

• A statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony;

• And the witness's prior conviction of a felony, if any.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony, or between a witness's testimony and that of another witness or witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that a witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common, and innocent mis-recollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. You should consider whether a discrepancy relates to an important matter or only to something trivial.

A witness who is willfully false in one material part of his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others. You nay reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless from all the evidence you believe the probability of truth favors his or her testimony in other particulars.

You are not required to decide any issue of fact in accordance with the testimony of a number of witnesses which does not convince you, as against the testimony of a lesser number, or other evidence which you find more convincing. You nay not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim or prejudice, or from a desire to favor one of side against the other.

You must not decide an issue by the simple process of counting the number of witnesses who have testified on the opposing sides. The final test is not in the relative number of witnesses, but in the convincing force of the evidence.

You have heard a lot about presumption of innocence and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm going to define that for you now you. You will hear it again before you have to decide this case.

A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved; and in case of a reasonable doubt whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This presumption places upon the people the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is defined as follows. It is not a mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge. That's the definition of reasonable doubt.

Okay. Now, that's the last you are going to hear from me this morning. We're going to start with the opening statements. We're going to start out with Mr. Distaso. As I told you before in these jury instructions, the opening statement is sort of a roadmap of what the attorney for either side intends to prove in this case. We'll start out with Mr. Distaso. He's estimated his opening statement will take approximately two hours. We'll have a recess in between. And then this afternoon Mr. Geragos has indicated he will be making an opening statement. We'll hear from Mr. Geragos this afternoon.