Rule 32 Post Conviction Remedies

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR JURY INSTRUCTIONS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY, ALABAMA

COMES NOW the Defendant by and through his attorney, and requests this Honorable Court to charge the jury as follows:

1. Each defendant is presumed to be innocent, and that presumption is not just an idle phrase. It is a presumption which starts at the beginning of the case and will continue throughout your deliberations and will prevail unless it is overcome by facts and evidence which you find beyond a reasonable doubt indicates the Defendant's guilt.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

2. This presumption of innocence, under our American system of jurisprudence, is a substantial part of our law and follows the Defendant not only when the indictment is returned, but stays with him throughout the entire case. It must not be cast aside by you through passion or prejudice. This presumption of innocence, which clothes every person accused of crime, imposes upon the Government the burden of establishing the guilt of an accused person, not by a mere preponderance of evidence, as in civil cases, but beyond a reasonable doubt. You are required, therefore, to give careful and weighty consideration to the presumption that the Defendant is innocent of the accusations made by the Government against him and if, after a consideration of the evidence in this case, you have any reasonable doubt as to his guilt, it is your duty to acquit him. You must exercise the utmost caution and care in considering the evidence here, lest you unjustly convict an innocent man.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

3. You are instructed that the presumption of innocence alone, when considered with the other evidence in the case, may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the Defendant, and if you entertain such reasonable doubt you must acquit him. Reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and which is reasonable in view of all the evidence. After considering the evidence if you feel that there exists an uncertainty in your mind as to the guilt of the Defendant, you must acquit him.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

4. Unless there is substantial evidence which excludes every other theory or hypothesis but that of guilt, it is the duty of the jury to acquit.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

5. If you find the evidence is consistent with the innocence of any defendant, you must acquit such defendant. If you believe that all of the substantial evidence is consistent with guilt but that it is also consistent with innocence, it is your duty to acquit such defendant.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

6. Before you may convict the Defendant, of any of the counts in this indictment, you must find the offense charged therein is proved beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence which is corroborated in every material respect.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

7. So, if in your opinion, the evidence introduced by the prosecution is only sufficient to raise a conjecture or a suspicion unfavorable to the accused, it is not such evidence as would justify you in rendering a verdict of guilty, and it is your duty under such circumstances, which I charged you, as a matter of law, to acquit the Defendant,

() GIVEN () REFUSED

8. In considering the evidence you may find that you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one or more Defendants are guilty of some offense alleged in the indictment, but that you cannot decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, just which count or counts of the indictment such defendant has violated. In that event, I charge you that you must find such defendant not guilty, for it would be grossly improper to find a person guilty of some offense as to which you could not be certain, notwithstanding you might be convinced of his moral culpability beyond a reasonable doubt.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

9. When the court used the words "reasonable doubt" in these instructions, it means an "honest doubt." If, after considering the evidence, you, as reasonable persons have the sort of doubt that would cause you to pause or hesitate in a grave transaction in your own lives, then you have the kind of doubt which the law contemplates as a reasonable doubt, and it is your duty to acquit such defendant or defendants as to whom you have such doubt.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

10. The burden is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the crime charged in the indictment. That burden never shifts. The Defendants need not prove their innocence. If on the whole proof, the evidence is as consistent with guilt as with innocence, it is the jury's duty to acquit.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

11. A reasonable doubt exists whenever, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case, the jurors do not feel convinced to a moral certainty that a defendant is guilty of the charge. So, if the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions — one of innocence, the other of guilt -- the jury should of course adopt the conclusion of innocence.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

12. I charge you, that if the evidence in this case, insofar as the Defendant, is concerned, merely creates suspicion in your minds, that is not sufficient to justify your returning a verdict of guilty against the Defendant, and your verdict then must be not guilty as to him. A conviction cannot be had upon strong suspicion or probabilities of guilt nor, as in civil cases, upon a mere preponderance of evidence against a defendant. Guilt in a criminal case, such as this, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

() GIVEN () REFUSED

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, requests this Honorable Court to instruct the jury as to the above referenced instructions in order to preserve his rights under the Constitutions of the United States and Alabama.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, on this the day of

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing document upon the following person by hand delivery or by placing a copy of the same in the United State Mail, postage prepaid, on this the day of

SUPPORTING CASELAW

People v. Guzman, (1990, 1^st Dept.), 164 App. Div. 2d 828, 559 NYS2d 550 (inadvertent failure of trial court to charge presumption of innocence was reversible error).

Re Wane M. (1983), 121 Misc. 2d 346, 467 NYS2d 798 (presumption of innocence is an evidentiary presumption which attaches at trial and must be charged by court to trier of fact).im.

State v. Desrosiers, (1989, RI), 559 A2d 641 ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt" may be equated to proof of guilt to moral certainty).

State v. Theriault, (1991), 24 Conn 909, S93 A2d 135 (instruction defining reasonable doubt as "the kind of doubt that in the serious affairs that concern you in your everyday life, you would pay heed and attention to" adequately defined standard of proof in criminal cases).

State v. Grundy, (1990, RI), S82 A2d 1166 (criminal defendant entitled to explanation of reasonable doubt injury instructions).bt.

Taylor v. Kentucky, (1978), 436 U.S. 478, 56 L.Ed 2d 468, 98 S. Ct. 1930 (instruction on presumption of innocence is one way of impressing upon jury the importance of an accused's constitutional right to be judged solely on basis of proof adduced at trial).