Fill and Sign the Consideration of the Evidence Direct and Circumstantial Argument Form

4.2 Consideration of the Evidence, Direct and Circumstantial - - Argument of Counsel Comments by the CourtAs I said earlier, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in the case. The term " evidence" includes the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits admitted in the record. Remember that anything the lawyers say is not evidence in the case. It is your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence that controls. What the lawyers say is not binding upon you. Also, you should not assume from anything I may have said that I have any opinion concerning any of the issues in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own decision concerning the facts. In considering the evidence you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to make; and you should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. " Direct evidence" is the testimony of one who asserts actual know ledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. "Circumstantial evidence" is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances tending to prove, or disprove, any fact in dispute. The law makes no distinction between the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTSUnited States v. Clark, 506 F.2d 416 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 967, 95 S.Ct, 1957, 44 L.Ed.2d 454 (1975) approves the substance of t his instruct ion concerning the lack of dist inc t ion between direct and circumstantial evidence; see also United States v. Barnette, 800 F.2d 1558, 1566 (11th Cir. 1986), reh'g denied, 807 F.2d 999 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 935, 107 S.Ct. 1578, 94 L.Ed.2d 769 (1987) (noting that the "test for evaluating circumstantial evidence is the same as in evaluating direct evidence") (citing United States v. Henderson, 693 F.2d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir. 1983)). United States v. Hope, 714 F.2d 1084, 1087 (11th Cir. 1983) ("A trial judge may comment upon the evidence as long as he instructs the jury that it is the sole judge of the facts and that it is not bound by his comments and as long as the comments are not so highly prejudicial that an instruction to that effect cannot cure the error.") (citing United States v. Buchanan, 5 85 F.2d 1 00 , 1 02 (5th Cir. 1 97 8)). United States v. Granville, 716 F.2d 81 9, 822 (11th Cir. 1983) notes that the jury was correctly instructed that the arguments of counsel should not be considered as evidence (citing United States v. Phillips, 6 64 F.2 d 971, 1 031 (5th Cir. 1981)); see also Unit ed States v. Siegel, 5 87 F.2d 7 21, 727 (5th Cir. 1979).