Instructions to the Jury and Swearing of the Deputies

Instructions to the Jury and Swearing of the Deputies

Jury Deliberations: Guilt Phase

November 3, 2004

JUDGE: All right, this is People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel, and the jury is in the jury box along with the alternates.

Just so you are not alarmed, these bailiffs are here because they are the ones that are going to be sworn to take charge of you. So we have to swear them. We'll do that after I'm done instructing you. But that's why they are here. Okay?

Now, I'm going to instruct you. I'm going to instruct you out of this book here. This is a jury book, and you are going to get this when you are deliberating. We're going to give you an extra one, so you have two of them at least, so you can review them when you are there now.

Just for your benefit, so you can find some of these jury instructions, I have split this book up into three parts. The first part just generally are the rules for evaluating evidence, how you go about evaluating evidence. Then the middle part has to do with the elements of the offenses, and any defenses. And the third part has to do with guidelines to the deliberative process.

So if you want to find something, that's how I have divided this up. So I'm going to read these jury instructions to you now. You should not have any difficulty understanding. These they are in plain English. There is a little bit of legaleze, but I'm sure you won't have any trouble understanding any of these.

And, like I said, you are going to have these in the jury room for your review while you are deliberating. Okay? And these will take maybe twenty minutes. And I won't go really too fast. I want to say if I read them to you, you can understand them the first time, okay? So just sit back and listen.

All right. Members of the jury, you have heard all the evidence and the arguments of the attorneys, and now it is my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case. The law requires that I read the instructions to you. You will have these instructions in written form in the jury room to refer to during your deliberations.

You must base your decision on the facts and the law.

You have two duties to perform. First, you must determine what facts have been proved from the evidence received in the trial and not from any other source. A fact is something proved by the evidence or by 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. 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, or prejudice against, the defendant. 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 to from any or all of them that a defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty.

You must not be influenced by 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.

If any rule, direction, or idea is repeated or stated in different ways in these instructions, no emphasis is intended, and you must not draw any inference because of its repetition. Do not single out any particular sentence or any individual point or instruction and ignore the others. Consider the instructions as a whole and each in the light of all the others.

And the order in which the instructions are given has no particular significance as to their relative importance.

Statements made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys have stipulated or agreed to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven.

If an objection was 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 to understand the answer. Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected, or any evidence that was stricken by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard of it.

You must decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source.

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 discuss this case with any other person including, but not limited to spouses, spiritual leaders or advisers, or therapists, except a fellow juror during deliberations, when all twelve of you are together in the jury room, and then the only after the case is submitted to you for your decision, and only when all twelve jurors are present in the jury room.

You have been given notebooks and pencils. You will be able to take them to the jury room when you deliberate.

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 here recollection of the evidence.

Finally, should any discrepancy exist between a juror's recollection of the evidence and a juror's notes, or between one juror's recollection and that of another, you may request that the reporter read back the relevant testimony, which must prevail.

Evidence consists of 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 evidence or circumstantial evidence.

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 and 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, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but, two, cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

Further, each fact which is essential to complete 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 appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

If you find that before this trial the defendant made willfully false or deliberately misleading statements concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider these statements as a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, that conduct is not e sufficient, by itself, to prove guilt, and its weight and sufficiency or significance, if any, are for you to decide.

Certain evidence was admitted for a limited purpose.

Remember, I admonished you as we went along about about why this evidence was coming in.

At the time this evidence was admitted, you were instructed that it could not be considered by you for any purpose other than a limited purpose for which it was admitted.

Do not consider this evidence for any purpose except the limited purpose for which it was admitted.

Neither side is required to call as witnesses all persons who may have been present at any of the events disclosed by the evidence, or who may have appear to have some knowledge of these events. Neither side is required to produce all objects or documents mentioned or suggested by the evidence.

Evidence that at some time, at some other time a witness made a statement or statements that are inconsistent or consistent with his or her testimony in this trial may be considered by you, not only for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness, but also as evidence of the truth of the facts as stated by the witness on that former occasion.

If you disbelieve a witness's testimony that he or she no longer remembers a certain event, that testimony is inconsistent with a prior statement or statements by him or her describing that event.

Now, in this case we had dog tracking evidence. Remember Trimble? And this relates to this dog tracking evidence.

Evidence of dog tracking of the victim has been received for your consideration. This evidence is not, by itself, sufficient to permit an inference that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder. Before guilt may be inferred, there must be other evidence that supports the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence. The evidence can be direct or circumstantial, and must support the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence.

In determining the weight to give to dog tracking evidence, you should consider:

One, whether or not the handler was qualified by training and experience to use the dog;

Two, whether or not the dog was adequately trained in tracking humans;

Three, whether or not the dog has been found reliable in tracking humans;

Four, whether the dog was placed on the track where circumstances have shown the victim to have been;

Five, whether or not the trail has become stale or contaminated by the environment, weather, or any other factor;

And, six, any other factor that could affect the accuracy of the dog tracking evidence.

This relates to the believability of witnesses, how you should weigh the testimony of witnesses. Okay?

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 the or ability of the witness to see, or hear, or otherwise become aware of any matter about which the witness has 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 any bias, interest, or other motive;

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

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

And any statement previously made by the witness that is consistent or inconsistent with his or her testimony.

Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or between a witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that a witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common.

Innocent misrecollection 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 may 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 may not disregard the testimony of the greater number of witnesses merely from caprice, whim, or prejudice, or from a desire to favor one 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 should give the testimony of a single witness whatever weight you think it deserves. Testimony concerning any fact by one witness, which you believe, is sufficient for the proof of that fact. You should carefully review all the evidence upon which the proof of that fact depends.

Motive. We have talked about motive.

Motive is not an element of the crime charged and need not be shown. However, you may consider motive or lack of motive as a circumstance in this case. Presence of motive may tend to establish the defendant is guilty.

Absence of motive may tend to show the defendant is not guilty.

The attempted flight of a person after the commission of a crime, or after he is accused of a crime, is not sufficient, in itself, to establish his guilt, but is a fact with which, if proved, may be considered by you in the light of all the other proved facts in deciding whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.

If there was such an attempted flight it is for the jury to decide. And the weight to which this circumstance is entitled is a matter for you to decide also.

A defendant in a criminal trial has a constitutional right not to be compelled to testify. You must not draw any inference from the fact that a defendant does not testify. Further, you must neither discuss this matter, nor permit it to enter into your deliberations in any way.

In deciding whether or not to testify, the defendant may choose to rely on the state of the evidence and upon the failure, if any, of the people to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the charge against him. No lack of testimony on the defendant's part will make up for a failure of proof by the people so as to support a finding against him on any essential element.

Now, you have heard from a lot of witnesses in this case.

Now we're going to talk about that. Okay?

Witnesses who have special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular subject have testified to certain opinions. This type of witness is referred to as an expert witness. In determining what weight to give to any opinion expressed by an expert witness, you should consider the qualifications and believability of the witness, the facts or materials upon which each opinion is based, and the reason for each opinion.

An opinion is only as good as the facts and reasons on which it is based. If you find that any fact has not been proved or has been disproved, you must consider that in determining the value of the opinion.

Likewise, you must consider the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons on which it is based.

You are not bound by an opinion. Give each opinion the weight you find it deserves. You may disregard any opinion if you find it to be unreasonable.

In determining the weight to be given to a opinion expressed by any witness who did not testify as an expert witness, you should consider his or her believability, the strength of his or her opportunity to perceive the matters upon which his or her opinion is based and the reasons, if any, given for it. You are not required to accept a opinion, but should give it the weight, if any, to which you find it entitled.

In examining an expert witness, counsel may ask a hypothetical question. This is a question in which the witness is asked to assume the truth of a set of facts, and to give an opinion based on that the assumption.

In permitting this type of question the Court does not rule, and does not necessarily find that all of the assumed facts have been proved.

It only determines that those assumed facts are within the possible range of the evidence. It is for you to decide from all the evidence whether or not the facts assumed in a hypothetical question have been proved.

If you should determine or decide that any assumption in a question has not been proved, you are to determine the effect of that failure of proof on the value and weight of the expert's opinion based on the assumed facts.

In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of expert witnesses, you should weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the qualifications and believability of each witness, the reasons for each opinion, and the manner upon which the based. Okay?

Now, this is the reasonable doubt instructions that you have heard before. Remember when I brought you here at the very beginning, we talked about reasonable doubt? I'm going to explain it to you now.

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 has 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. Okay?

When, as in this case, it is alleged that the crime charged was committed on or about a certain date, if you find that the crime was committed, it is not necessary that the proof show that it was committed on that precise date. It is sufficient if the proof shows that the crime was committed on or about that date.

In the crimes charged in Counts 1 and 2, namely, murder, there must exist a union or joint operation of act or conduct and a certain specific intent in the mind of the perpetrator. Unless this specific intent exists, the crime to which it relates is not committed or is not true.

The specific intent required is included in the definition of the crime set forth elsewhere in his these instructions.

I'm going to get to that now. I'm going to define the crimes to you now, okay? That's the first part of this book. Now we're going to get into the definition of the crimes.

Homicide is the killing of one human being by another, either lawfully or unlawfully. Homicide includes murder, which is unlawful.

Defendant is accused in Count 1 and Count 2 of having committed the crime of murder, a violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code.

Every person who unlawfully kills a human being or fetus with malice aforethought is guilty of the crime of murder, in violation of Penal Code Section 187.

In the crime of murder, a human fetus is defined as an unborn offspring in the post-embryonic period after major structures have been outlined. This period occurs in human beings seven or eight weeks after fertilization.

In order to prove this crime each of the following elements must be proved:

A human being was killed or a human fetus was killed;

The killing was unlawful, and the killing was done with malice aforethought.

This is two kinds of malice. Okay. I'm going to explain that to you now.

Malice can either be express malice or implied malice.

Malice is express when there is manifested an intention unlawfully to kill a human being.

Malice is implied when the killing resulted from an intentional act;

Two, the natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life;

And, three, the act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for human life.

When it is, when it is shown that killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought.

The mental state consisting of malice aforethought does not necessarily require any ill will or hatred of the person killed.

The word "aforethought" does not imply deliberation or the laps of considerable time. It only means that the required mental state must precede rather than follow the act.

Now I'm going to define to you what is meant by deliberate and premeditated murder. Okay?

All murder which is perpetrated by any kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing with express malice aforethought is murder of the first degree.

The word "willful" as used in this instruction means intentional.

The word "deliberate" means formed, or arrived at, or determined upon, as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations for and against the proposed course of action.

The word "premeditated" means considered beforehand.

If you find that the killing was preceded and accompanied by a clear, deliberate intent on the part of the defendant to kill which was the result of deliberation and premeditation so that it must have been formed upon preexisting reflection and not under sudden heat of passion or other conditions precluding the idea of deliberation, it is murder of the first degree.

The law does not undertake to measure in units of time the length of the period during which the thought must be pondered before it can ripen into an intent to kill which is truly deliberate and premeditated. The time will vary with different individuals and under varying circumstances.

The true test is not the duration of time, but rather the extent of the reflection. A cold, calculated judgment and decision may be arrived at in a short period of time; but a mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not deliberation and premeditation as will fix an unlawful killing as murder of the first degree.

To constitute a deliberate, premeditated killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice, and having in mind the consequences, he decides to and does kill.

Okay. So first degree murder you need two things: Express malice and intent to kill, and premeditation and deliberation as I have defined it for you, okay?

Then you also have second degree murder.

Murder of the second degree is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, when the perpetrator intended unlawfully to kill a human being, but the evidence is insufficient to prove premeditation and deliberation.

Murder of the second degree is also the unlawful killing of a human being when:

The killing resulted from an intentional act;

The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life;

And the act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to and with conscious disregard for human life.

When the killing its the direct result of such an act, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended that the act would result in the death of a human being.

So I have given you have the definition of first degree and the definition of second degree. Now, if you recall here, there is a special circumstance allegation that there were multiple murders in this case. I'm going to read that to you now.

If you find the defendant in this case guilty of murder of the first degree, then you must determine if the following special circumstance is true or untrue: That the defendant Scott Peterson committed more than one murder in the first or the second degree in this proceeding.

The people have the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a special circumstance is true, you must find it to be not true.

Unless an intent to kill is an element of a special circumstance, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant actually killed a human being, you need not find the defendant intended to kill in order to find a special circumstance to be true.

In order to find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true or untrue, you must agree unanimously.

You will state your special finding as to whether the special circumstance is or is not true in the form that will be supplied. And I'll go over these verdict forms with you in just a minute.

Murder is classified into two degrees. If you should find the defendant guilty of murder, you must determine and state in your verdict whether you find the murder to be of the first or second degree.

If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimously agree that the crime of murder has been committed by a defendant, but you unanimously agree that you have a reasonable doubt whether the murder was of the first or second degree, you must give the defendant the benefit of that doubt and return a verdict fixing the murder as of the second degree.

To find that the special circumstance referred to in these instructions as multiple murder convictions is true, it must be proved: That the defendant has, in this case, been convicted of at least one crime of murder of the first degree and one or more crimes of murder of the first or second degree.

You are not permitted to find a special circumstance alleged the this case to be true based on circumstantial evidence unless the proved circumstances is not only consistent with the theory that a special circumstance is true, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the truth of a special circumstance must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In other words, before an inference essential to establish the special circumstance may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which that inference necessarily rests must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, if the circumstantial evidence is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the truth of a special circumstance and the other to its untruth, you must adopt that interpretation which points to its untruth and reject the interpretation that points to its truth.

If, on the other hand, one interpretation of that evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

The specific intent or mental state with which an act is done may be shown by the circumstances surrounding its commission. But you may not find a special circumstance alleged in this case to be true unless the proved surrounding circumstances are not only, one, consistent with the theory that the defendant had the required specific intent or mental state; but, two cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.

Also, if the evidence as to any specific intent or mental state is susceptible of two reasonable interpretations, one of which points to the existence of the specific intent or mental state and the other to the absence of the specific intent or mental state, you must adopt that interpretation which points to the absence of the specific intent or mental state.

If, on the other hand, one interpretation of the evidence as to the specific intent or mental state appears to you to be reasonable, and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, you must accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable.

In your deliberations the subject of penalty or punishment is not to be discussed or considered by you. That is a matter which must not, in any way, affect your verdict, or affect your finding as to the special circumstance alleged in this case. Okay?

Now we get to the concluding instructions.

The purpose of the Court's instruction is to provide you with the applicable law so that you may arrive at a just and lawful verdict. Whether some instructions apply will depend upon what you find to be the facts.

Disregard any instruction which applies to facts determined by you not to exist.

Do not conclude that because an instruction has been given that I am expressing an opinion as to the facts.

The people and the defendant are entitled to the individual opinion of each juror.

Each of you must consider the evidence for the purpose of reaching a verdict if you can do so. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but should do so only after discussing the evidence and instructions with the other jurors.

Do not hesitate to change an opinion if you are convinced it is wrong. However, do not decide any question in a particular way because a majority of the jurors, or any of them, favor that decision.

Do not decide any issue in this case by the flip of a coin or by any other chance termination.

The attitude and conducts of jurors at all times are very important. It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of the deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case, or to announce a determination to stand for a certain verdict. When one does that at the outset, a sense of pride may be aroused, and one may hesitate to change a position even if shown it is wrong. Remember that you are not partisans or advocates in this matter. You are impartial judges of the facts.

During deliberations, any consequence or requests you may have should be addressed to the court on a form that you will be provided.

If there is any disagreement as to the actual testimony, you may, you have the right, if you choose, to request a read back by the reporter.

You may request a partial or a total read back. But any read back should be a fair presentation of that evidence.

If a read back of testimony is requested, the reporter will delete objections and rulings so that you will hear only the evidence that was actually presented.

Please understand that counsel must first be contacted, and it may make time to provide a response or read back. Continue deliberating until you are called back into the courtroom.

The instructions which I am now giving to you may be, will be made available in written form for your deliberations. They must not be defaced in any way.

Every part of the text of an instruction, whether typed, printed, or handwritten is of equal importance. You are to be governed only by the instruction in its final wording.

Do not disclose to anyone outside the jury, not even to me or any members of my staff, either orally or in writing, how you may be divided numerically in your balloting as to any issue, unless I specifically direct you otherwise.

I will bring you back in here. I would ask you. But, until then, can't discuss it, okay?

Now, in this case there are six possible verdicts, and I'm going to review them with you. These various possible verdicts are set forth in the forms of verdict which you will receive. Only one of the possible verdicts may be returned by you as to any particular count. If you have all agreed as to one verdict as to a particular count, the corresponding form is the only verdict form to be signed as to that count. The other forms are to be left unsigned.

I'm going to read these instructions to you. I haven't looked at them. I have reviewed them. But I don't meant to infer to you how you should find by the order in which I read these to you, because I'm just going read them the way they are clipped together here, all right?

So there is obviously two forms of verdict as to each count, and there is two forms of verdict as to the special circumstance. So here is the first one I'm going to read to you.

People of the State of California versus Scott Peterson. We the jury in the above-entitled cause find the defendant Scott Lee Peterson not guilty of the crime of murder of Laci Denise Peterson, a violation of Section 187(a) as alleged in Count 1 of the information filed herein. Dated and signed by the foreperson. Okay?

The second form of the verdict is as follows:

We the jury in the above-entitled cause find the defendant Scott Lee Peterson guilty of the crime of murder of Laci Denise Peterson, in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a) as alleged in Count 1 of the information filed herein. Dated and signed by the foreperson.

Then you have to tell me whether or not it's first or second degree, so there is a paragraph here:

We the jury first find the degree of murder to be that of, and then there is a choice, first or second degree. Dated, signature of the foreperson. Okay?

So if you find the defendant guilty of murder, you have to tell me what the degree is.

The second form of the verdict is exactly the same. It relates to Baby Conner Peterson. All right? Exactly the same.

And then we have the special circumstances instructions. Now, these only become relevant if you find the defendant guilty of at least one count of first degree murder and a second doubt of either first or second degree murder, then you have to decide the special circumstance. All right?

We the jury in the above-entitled cause find to be true the special circumstance, pursuant to Penal Code 192(a)(3), in that the said Defendant Scott Lee Peterson has, in this case, been convicted of at least one crime of murder of the first degree, and one or more crimes of murder of the first or second degree. Dated, signed by the foreperson. Has to be signed.

And the other one says not true, special circumstance is not true, date and signature of your foreperson.

So these verdict forms are relatively easy to figure out. Okay?

And we'll have them here when you request them. If you request them, we'll send them in to you. Almost done.

As for the alternate jurors, you are still bound by the admonition that you are not to converse among yourselves or with anyone else on any subject connected with this trial, or to form or express any opinion on it until the case is submitted to you, which means until such time as you are substituted in for one of the twelve jurors now deliberating in the case.

This means that you are not to decide how you would vote if you were deliberating with the other jurors.

During periods of recess, you must not discuss with anyone any subject connected with this trial, and you must not deliberate further upon the case until all twelve of you are together and reassembled in the jury room. At that time you will notify the clerk or the bailiff that the jury is reassembled and then continue your deliberations.

Now, you are sequestered, and so you are going to go home every night. So you can't discuss this case with anybody, not even the alternates.

The only time you can discuss this case is when you are back in the jury room, you are conducting your deliberations, and then only when all twelve jurors are present, then you can discuss it until you are blue in the face. Okay? But not when you are out of that jury room. So, and not with the alternates, and not with any members of the staff of that hotel. Okay? So bear that in mind.

You shall now retire and select one of your number to act as foreperson. He or she will preside over your deliberations. In order to reach verdicts, all twelve jurors must agree to the decision and to any finding you may have been instructed to include in your verdict.

As soon as you have agreed upon a verdict, so then when polled each may state truthfully that the verdicts express his or her vote, have them dated and signed by your foreperson, and then return with them to this courtroom. And return any unsigned verdict forms.

Now, two things. May we have a stipulation that if the jury is still deliberating at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, that the jury can be excused by the bailiff from the jury room with the standard admonition, and preclude the necessity of bringing counsel and defendant into the courtroom to excuse the jury?

GERAGOS: So stipulated.

DISTASO: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: The second thing is, if the jury requests any exhibits, may it be stipulated that the Court can send in the exhibit requested without bringing counsel into the courtroom, and the defendant, and advising counsel accordingly?

GERAGOS: Yes.

DISTASO: Yes.

GERAGOS: We also had indicated that if they want read back, I talked to Jenne about it. The court reporter can go in to do the read back for the specific items without the necessity. You want to stipulate, then, if read back is requested, the Court will make a determination, first of all, that we are on the right page, and so forth.

GERAGOS: Then the Court would also contact counsel about this?

JUDGE: We'll let you know. But all agree the read back can take place in the jury room?

GERAGOS: Yes.

DISTASO: Yes, your Honor.

JUDGE: Just the court reporter present?

DISTASO: Yes.

JUDGE: All right. Now, since you are sequestered, see all those guys over there? They are your keepers, so we got to swear them in.

Okay. If you deputies will please stop forward, and we'll swear them in.

DISTASO: Your Honor, the 17.30?

GERAGOS: 17.30, it's --

DISTASO: Sure. We thought maybe you didn't read 17.30.

GERAGOS: 17.30.

JUDGE: Yeah. Oh, maybe I skipped it. I think I gave it. This is the, one more jury instruction. If you guys would go down. I think the page may have stuck together. There is one other instruction. I have it in my book, but I think the page stuck together.

I have not intended by anything I have said or done, or by any questions that I may have asked, or by any ruling I may have made to intimate or suggest what you should find to be the facts, or that I believe or disbelieve any witness. If anything I have done or said has seemed to so indicate, you will disregard it and form your own conclusions.

Thank you. That's the page stuck together.

Okay. You guys can stand up. We're going to swear you all in.

She is going to take your names.

CLERK: Raise your right hand. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will keep the jurors in some quiet and convenient place, you will not speak to them or allow them to be spoken to unless ordered to do so by court, or ask them if they have reached a verdict; that you will return them to the courtroom when they have reached a verdict or when ordered to do so by the Court, so help you God? (Deputies answer in unison affirmatively.)

CLERK: Can you please start stating and spelling your name, starting with Captain Hanlon?

JUDGE: Okay. If you gentlemen and ladies will step aside for just a second. Okay. Just so you know, now that you have been instructed, you cannot be separated. Okay? So that I just want to let you know that. So if you are wondering why we're keeping you together in a group, the law requires, you cannot be separated. You can't run out and have coffee, or anything like that. You got to be all together. All right? So we have got your lunch ready to go. So we're going to put you in the jury room now. The alternates have to be separate from the twelve jurors deliberating. The law requires that. And so when you are done having your lunch you can start your deliberating any time you want as far as that goes, but as long as all twelve are present in the jury room. Okay? So put you in the jury room now. Lunch, I think they will have the lunches there for you in just a few minutes, you can get started okay.

DEPUTY CARNEVALE: The twelve jurors can take their notebooks, pens, any personal items, and follow me, please.

DEPUTY ORANGE: Alternates follow me. Do you have of your notebooks?

JUDGE: Give them to Jenne so she can bring them in. Okay, that's it. The jury is going to start deliberations now. And so we'll be in recess until I hear from them. You are welcome to hang around if you want.

JUDGE: All right, indicate for the record these proceedings are taking place in chambers because the courtroom is sort of bedlam out there right now. The District Attorney has requested, out of an abundance of caution, that, and the record should reflect that Mr. Peterson, the defendant, is present with his counsel, Pat Harris. That you personally waive your presence at 4:00 o'clock when the jury is excused?

PETERSON: Uh-huh.

JUDGE: Like it was stipulated by, Mr. Geragos stipulated to it. And about sending in any of the exhibits, and you want to waive your presence for both of those instances?

PETERSON: I waive my presence.

DISTASO: Just for any potential read back.

JUDGE: Well, not going to put a, waive your presence for any potential read back which would take place in the jury room?

PETERSON: Yes, your Honor.

DISTASO: Thanks. That's all.

JUDGE: These proceedings are not sealed.

JUDGE: This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show that these proceedings are taking place in open court. The defendant having waived his personal appearance, and the defense having waived their personal appearance, and the District Attorney having waived their personal appearance. So what we are going to do now we're going to swear in additional bailiffs that will be keeping the jury in safekeeping pending the resolution of the case either by a verdict, or whatever. So we're going to swear these deputies in now. So go ahead, Marylin.

CLERK: Raise your right hand. Each of you do solemnly swear that you will keep the jurors in some quiet and convenient place, you will not speak to them, or allow them to speak be spoken to unless ordered to do so by Court or to ask them if they have reached a verdict. That you will return them to the courtroom when they have reached a verdict, or when ordered to do so by the Court so help God? (Deputies answer affirmatively in unison.)

JUDGE: Get their names.

CLERK: State and spell your full name for the record.

JUDGE: Are you going to be part of this?

DEPUTY SHERIFF: Correct.

CLERK: I have to swear you. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that you will keep these jurors in some quiet and convenient place, you will not speak to them or allow them to be spoken to unless ordered to do so by the Court, or ask them if they have reached a verdict. That you will return them into the courtroom when they have reached a verdict or when ordered to do so by Court, so help you God?

DEPUTY SHERIFF: I will.

JUDGE: Okay. Thank you very much. And we'll be in recess. If there is any more we can swear them tomorrow morning. Okay? All right. Thank you.