Judge: Treat accomplice evidence carefully
JUDGE William Dimitrouleas, in an address to the jury hearing the charges against Lance Small, yesterday said that in arriving at their verdict, the jury must consider all the evidence in the case. But they must be cautious when dealing with witnesses who were once charged with the same offences, but pleaded guilty and entered a plea agreement with the US government. Referring obviously to Trinidadian Keith Andre Glaude, the judge pointed out that the witness may be speaking the truth, but because of situation, may want to gain more favourable treatment to strike a good bargain with the government. Dimitrouleas gave directions to the jury for 30 minutes before the 12-member panel retired to consider their verdict. The following is the judge’s directions: Members of the jury, it is now my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must follow and apply in deciding this case. When I have finished you will go to the jury room and begin your discussions...what we call your deliberations. It will be your duty to decide whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the specific facts necessary to find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the indictment. You must make your decision only on the basis of the testimony and other evidence presented here during the trial; and you must not be influenced in any way by either sympathy or prejudice or against the defendant or the government. You must also follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree with that law or not; and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You may not single out, or disregard any of the court’s instructions on the law. The indictment or formal charge against any defendant is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, every defendant is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a defendant to prove innocence or to produce any evidence at all; and if a defendant elects not to testify, you should not consider that in any way during your deliberations. The government has the burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must find that defendant not guilty. This, while the government’s burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it is not necessary that a defendant’s guilt be proved beyond all possible doubt. It is only required that the Government’s proof exclude any ‘reasonable doubt’ concerning the defendant’s guilt. A ‘reasonable doubt’ is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. If you are convinced that the defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. As I said earlier, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in this 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 the 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 knowledge of a fact, such as an eye witness. ‘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. Now, in saying that you must consider all of the evidence, I do not mean that you must accept all of the evidence as true and accurate. You should decide whether you believe what each witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. Also, the number of witnesses testifying concerning any particular dispute is not controlling. In deciding whether you believe or do not believe any witness, I suggest that you ask yourself a few questions: 1) Did the witness impress you as one who was telling the truth? 2) Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth? 3) Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? 4) Did the witness seem to have a good memory? 5) Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to observe accurately the things he or she testified about? 6) Did the witness appear to understand the questions clearly and answer them directly? 7) Did the witness’ testimony differ from other testimony or other evidence? 8) You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence tending to prove that a witness testified falsely concerning some important factor, or whether there was evidence that at some other time a witness said or did something, or failed to say or do something, which was different from the testimony the witness gave before you during the trial. The fact that a witness has been convicted of a felony offence, or a crime involving dishonesty or false statement, is another factor you may consider in deciding whether you believe that witness. You should keep in mind, of course, that a simple mistake by a witness does not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the truth as he or she remembers it, because people naturally tend to forget some things or remember other things accurately. So, if a witness has made a mis-statement, you need to consider whether it was simply an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood; and the significance of that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or with only an unimportant detail. The testimony of some witnesses must be considered with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. For example, a paid informer, or a witness who has been promised that he or she will not be charged or prosecuted, or a witness who hopes to gain more favourable treatment in his or her own case, may have a reason to make a false statement because the witness wants to strike a good bargain with the government. So, while a witness of that kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should consider that testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. In this case, the government called as one of its witnesses, a person named as a defendant in another indictment, with whom the Government has entered a plea agreement providing for the possibility of a lesser sentence than the witness would otherwise be exposed to. Such plea bargaining, as it is called, has been proved as lawful and proper, and is expressly provided for in the rules of this court. However, a witness who hopes to gain more favourable treatment may have a good reason to make a false statement because the witness wants to strike a good bargain with the government. So, while a witness of that kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should consider such testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. And, of course, the fact that a witness has pleaded guilty to the crime charged in the indictment is not evidence, in and of itself, of the guilt of any other person. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that the defendant did commit the acts charged in the indictment, then you may consider evidence of the similar acts allegedly committed on other occasions to determine whether the defendant had the predisposition to commit the crime charged in the indictment.
Comments
"Judge: Treat accomplice evidence carefully"