Fill and Sign the Form 6 27 17 Temp in the Circuit Court of

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI STATE OF MISSISSIPPI VS. CAUSE NUMBER DEFENDANT MOTION FOR PROCESS INSTRUCTIONS COMES NOW, , by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 3, §§ 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 & 32 of the Mississippi Constitution to instruct the jury prior to voir dire as to how the legal process works, so that jurors will not be so confused with the system. In support of his/her motion, states as follows: 1. Jurors have a hard enough time understanding their function in any trial. See Strawn & Buchanan, Jury Confusion: A Threat to Justice , 59 Judicature 478 (1976). In a capital prose- cution the law is far more complex than in any other kind of case, and the stakes much higher. The Eighth Amendment therefore absolutely forbids a situation where "the sentencing jury is unaware of what it may consider in reaching its decision." Chenault v. Stynchcombe, 581 F.2d 444, 448 (5th Cir. 1978). For this reason, the Supreme Court has "mandate[d] that the judge clearly instruct the jury. . . ." Id. (citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1978)); accord Balkcom v. Goodwin, 684 F.2d 794, 801-02 (11th Cir. 1982); Spivey v. Zant, 661 F.2d 464, 469-71 (5th Cir. 1981); Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1981). 2. Therefore, moves that the jury be instructed prior to the case concerning the nature of their responsibilities. As Chief Judge Hugh of the Judicial Circuit in recently noted in the latest of his many capital cases: One of the confounding difficulties I encountered in selecting jurors in the cases was that many people of all age, education, and experience levels, do not understand many of the questions put to them on voir dire. You talk along with a juror who appears perfectly level headed and understanding and all of a sudden he [or she] says something which makes you realize that he has not really understood the question put to him. In an attempt to deal with this problem I prepared and recited to each juror before he [or she] was questioned a preliminary explanation of the procedure in a death penalty case. I enclose for you each a copy of that explanation and I propose to use this explanation, or something similar, in the [instant] case. Obviously, the enclosure will have to be amended to fit the facts of the . . . case, but other than these obvious amendments I would like to have your reaction to this explanation. . . . Letter of Hugh Lawson (June 11, 1990). 3. As is illustrated by a brief conversation with any of the jurors from the prior trial of this case, Chief Judge Lawson is quite correct to suggest that jurors have no idea what they are meant to be doing in a capital trial. For these reasons, then, an instruction such as t he following should be given: In this case, you are to determine whether , the defendant, is guilty or not guilty of murder. If, and only if, he is found guilty, you would then be called upon to decide whether he will be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or to death. I need to discuss the possibility of the death penalty at this stage, just to l et you know what might lie ahead of us. However, I must stress to you that there is every possibility that the death penalty will never be an issue in this tria l. If selected as a juror, you should not even consider the death penalty until a decision has been reached as to whether is actually guilty of the crimes charged, or not. The trial of this case may take place in two phases, although the second phase may not be necessary. In the first stage, the jury hears evidence and is asked to decide whether is guilty of the crimes charged. has no burden to prove anything. If the State fails to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to the satisfaction of all twelve jurors, he is entitled to be acquitted. Only if there is a finding of guilty will there be a second phase of the trial. If it was to take place, at that point, the jurors would decide whether should be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or to death. At that stage, the jury does not have to be unanimous, and each juror is charged with evaluating the evidence individually, and coming to his or her own decision. The sentencing decision is made solely by the jury, and I am bound by whatever decision you may reach. There are three possible verdicts at that stage of the trial: The jury may al l agree that death is the appropriate punishment; the jury may all agree that li fe im- prisonment is an appropriate punishment or jury may decide that, because indi- vidual jurors disagree, it is not possible to reach a verdict to which everyone agrees. A jury is not authorized to impose the death penalty simply because the accused has been found guilty of murder. The death penalty is authorized only in particularly aggravated cases, as defined by Mississippi law, and it may be imposed only after the jury has considered factors regarding the crime and the person on trial. I am going to give you a brief summary of how this process works. At the end of the case, I will give you more detailed instructions on the law. However, this overview will help you understand how the process works and why we will be asking you certain questions at this time. has been indicted on one charge of murder. An indictment cannot be considered as evidence of guilt. As those of you will know who have ever sat on a grand jury, the indictment is found by a grand jury based solely on the prosecution's evidence. The accused is not permitted to be present, or to contest the evidence presented to the grand jury. is, and must be, presumed to be innocent of the charges against him. In some countries, a person accused of a crime must prove that he or she is innocent. This is not how the justice system works in the United States of America. Nobody charged with a crime is ever required to prove his or her innocence. The State of Mississippi bears the burden of proving , or anyone else charged with a crime, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the State does not meet this burden, then the accused is entitled to an acquittal, and you, as a juror, would be sworn to find him not guilty. In any criminal case, since the accused need not present evidence of any kind, there is no requirement that the accused take the stand in his or her own favor. There are many reasons why the accused might decide, on advice of counsel, not to testify. For example, the accused may not be a good public speaker, and may be easily confused by the attorney for the other party. In any event, whatever the reason, you are bound by oath and by the Constitution of the United States not to hold the silence of the accused against him or against her. Because the State bears the burden of proof, the State will first present its case against . He will then be given the opportunity to present evidence, should he so choose. At the end of the evidence you, as jurors, will be called upon to make the decision whether is guilty of the crimes charges, or whether the State has failed to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were to find not guilty, or guilty of some lesser charge than capital murder, your duties would be over. In any case where the death penalty is not an option, I am responsible for imposing sentence. Only if the jury all agreed that was guilty of capital murder would the case progress to the second stage. At this point, further evidence might be presented. Again, because the State of Mississippi bears the burden of proof, the State would first present the case in favor of the death penalty. Then would be given the opportunity to present evidence favoring the imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. In order for the death penalty to be authorized as a possible punishment, the State must first prove to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused killed the victim, intended to kill the victim, or at tempted to kill the victim. If none of these factors is satisfactorily proven, the jury is bound to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Second, the death penalty cannot be imposed unless the State proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of one or more aggravating circum- stances. The jury would receive instructions defining any such aggravating cir- cumstances before deliberating, but for now you need only to understand that ag- gravating circumstances amount to more than the mere intentional and unlawful taking of a life. The jury would be authorized to consider the death penalty only if it found one or more of the aggravating circumstances to exist. Even if the jury should find the accused guilty of murder and, in addition, find one or more aggravating circumstances to exist, the jury would not be required to impose the death penalty. The jury would be required to consider any evidence in mitigation offered on behalf of the person to be sentenced. Mitigating circumstances are anything about the life and background of the person which in fairness and mercy should be considered in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. If any member of the jury should accept any evidence in mitigation then that particular juror is bound to consider that evidence, even if all the other eleven jurors failed to accept the evidence. Mitigating circumstances must be considered by each juror individually. That is to say that, while all twelve jurors must agree that a particular aggravating circumstance is present before it may be considered, each juror must consider such evidence in mitigation as he or she feels has been shown.Even if the jury were to find aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances, the jury would still have the right to impose the sentence of life imprisonment. The imposition of the death penalty is never mandatory. The jury always has the option of sentencing the defendant to life imprisonment. WHEREFORE, premises considered, respectfully moves that such a process instruc- tion be given. Respectfully submitted, By:_________________________ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, , attorney for , do hereby certify that I have on this day delivered, by hand, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to This the day of . _____________________________