SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`Criminal Division — Felony Branch
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`:
`
`Criminal No. 2021 CF2 0965
`
`v.
`
`CALVIN REID
`
`Judge Robert A. Salerno
`
`FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`I.
`
`INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS
`
`Nowthat all of the evidenceis in, I will give you instructions on the law that youare to
`apply in this case. For the mostpart, these are standard instructionsthatjudges and lawyers have
`worked hard to makeaccurate andfair. I will also provide you with a copy of these instructions.
`During your deliberations, you may, if you want, refer to these instructions. While you may
`refer to any particular portion ofthe instructions, you are to considerthe instructions as a whole
`and you maynot follow some and ignore others. If you have any questions about the
`instructions, you should feel free to send me a note. Please return your instructions to me when
`
`your verdict is rendered.
`First, I will take a few momentsto instruct you on some general rules of law. Some of
`these instructions will repeat what I told you in my preliminary instructions.
`I will then talk to
`you aboutthe specific charges and someofthe specific issues in this case. The lawyers will then
`give their closing arguments. After that, I will give you somebrief, final instructions before
`
`sending youto deliberate.
`
`Function of the Court
`
`I am sure that you now understandthat you and I have different jobs in a trial. My
`function is to conductthis trial in an orderly, fair, and efficient manner; to rule on questions of
`law that came up duringtrial; and to instruct you onthe legalrules that apply to this case.
`I have explained someofthese rules to you during the courseof the trial, and I am about
`to explain others to you before yougo to the jury room. This is my job;it is not the job of the
`lawyers. So while the lawyers may have commented about some ofthese rules during thetrial,
`youare to be guided only by whatI say the legal standardsare.
`
`1
`
`

`

`It is your duty to accept the law as J state it to you. You should considerthe instructions
`
`as a whole. You may notignore any instruction or question the wisdom ofany rule of law.
`
`
`
`FunctionoftheJury
`
`Your function, as the jury, is to determine whatthe facts are in this case. You are the sole
`
`judges of the facts. While it is my responsibility to decide what is admitted as evidence during
`
`the trial, you alone decide what weight, if any, to give to that evidence. You alone decide the
`
`credibility or believability of the witnesses.
`
`As I explained earlier, as human beings, weall have personal likes and dislikes, opinions,
`
`prejudices, and biases. Generally, we are aware of these things, but you also should consider the
`
`possibility that you have implicit biases, that 1s, biases of which you may not be consciously
`
`aware. Personal prejudices, preferences, or biases have no place in a courtroom, where the goal
`
`is to arrive at a just and impartial verdict. All people deserve fair treatmentin the legal system
`
`regardless of any personal characteristic, such as race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age,
`
`disability, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, education, or incomelevel, or
`
`any other personal characteristic. You should determine the facts solely from a fair
`
`consideration of the evidence.
`
`You may not take anything I may havesaid or done as indicating how I think you should
`
`decide this case. If you believe that I have expressed or indicated any such opinion, you should
`
`ignore it. The verdict in this case is your sole and exclusive responsibility.
`
`BurdenofProof—PresumptionofInnocence
`
`Every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of
`
`innocence remains with the defendant throughoutthetrial unless and until the government has
`
`proven he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden nevershifts throughoutthetrial.
`
`The law does not require the defendant to prove his innocenceor to produce any evidenceatall.
`
`If you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a
`
`particular offense with which the defendant is charged, it is your duty to find him guilty of that
`
`offense. On the other hand, if you find the government has failed to prove any element of an
`
`offense beyond a reasonable doubt,it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty of that offense.
`
`

`

`Reasonable Doubt Defined
`
`The governmenthasthe burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
`doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true thannot,or, in
`somecases, that its truth is highly probable. In criminal cases such asthis one, the government’s
`proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable
`doubt, as the name implies, is a doubt based on reason—a doubt for which you have a reason
`based upon the evidence or lack of evidencein the case. If, after careful, honest, and impartial
`consideration ofall the evidence, you cannotsay that youare firmly convinced of the
`
`defendant’s guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.
`Reasonable doubtis the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful
`
`and thoughtfulreflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important mattersin life.
`However,it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork;it is a
`doubt based on reason. The governmentis not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a
`mathematical or scientific certainty. Its burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
`
`
`
`ConsideringtheEvidenceintheCase;Stipulations
`
`
`
`
`
`During your deliberations, you may consider only the evidence properly admitted in this
`trial. The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits that
`
`were admitted into evidence, and the facts and testimony stipulated to by theparties.
`Duringthetrial, you weretold that the parties had stipulated—thatis, agreed—tocertain
`facts. You should consider any stipulation of fact to be undisputed evidence.
`Whenyou considerthe evidence, you are permitted to draw,from thefacts that you find
`have been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in the light of your
`experience. You should give any evidence such weightas in your judgmentit is fairly entitled to
`
`receive.
`
`Statements of Counsel Not Evidence
`
`The statements and argumentsof the lawyers are not evidence. They are only intended to
`
`assist you in understanding the evidence. Similarly, the questions of the lawyers are not
`
`evidence.
`
`

`

`Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
`
`There are two types of evidence from which you mayfindthetruth as to the facts of a
`
`case—direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. When a witness, such as an eyewitness,
`
`asserts actual knowledge ofa fact, that witness’s testimonyis direct evidence. On the other
`
`hand, evidence of facts and circumstances from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is
`
`circumstantial evidence.
`
`Let me give you an example. Assume a person looked out a window and saw that snow
`
`wasfalling. If he later testified in court about what he saw,his testimony would bedirect
`
`evidence that snow wasfalling at the time he saw it happen. Assume, however, that he looked
`
`out a window and saw no snow on the ground, and then went to sleep and saw snow on the
`
`ground after he woke up. His testimony about what he had seen would be circumstantial
`
`evidence that it had snowed while he wasasleep.
`
`The law says that both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as means of
`
`proving a fact. The law does not favor one form of evidence over another. It is for you to decide
`
`how much weightto give to any particular evidence, whetherit is direct or circumstantial. You
`
`are permitted to give equal weight to both. Circumstantial evidence does not require a greater
`
`degree of certainty than direct evidence. In reaching a verdict in this case, you should consider
`
`all of the evidence presented, both direct and circumstantial.
`
`
`
`CredibilityofWitnesses
`
`In determining whether the governmenthas established the charge(s) against the
`
`defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider and weighthe testimonyofall the
`
`witnesses whohavetestified. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You
`
`alone are to determine whetherto believe any witness and the extent to which a witness should
`
`be believed. Judging a witness’s credibility means evaluating whether the witnesshastestified
`
`truthfully and also whether the witness accurately observed, recalled, and described the matters
`
`about which the witness testified.
`
`As | instructed you at the beginningoftrial and again just now, you should evaluate the
`
`credibility of witnesses free from prejudices and biases.
`
`You mayconsider anything that in your judgmentaffects the credibility of any witness.
`
`For example, you may consider the demeanor and behavior of the witness on the witness stand;
`
`the witness’s manneroftestifying; whether the witness impresses you as having an accurate
`
`

`

`memory; whether the witness has any reasonfor nottelling the truth; whether the witness had a
`meaningful opportunity to observe the matters about which heorshetestified, whether the
`witness has any interest in the outcomeofthis case, or friendship or hostility toward other people
`
`concerned with this case.
`
`In evaluating the accuracy of a witness’s memory, you may consider the circumstances
`surrounding the event, including the time that has elapsed between the event and any later
`recollections of the event, and the circumstances under which the witness wasaskedto recall
`details ofthe event.
`|
`You may consider whether there are any consistencies or inconsistencies in a witness’s
`testimony or between the witness’s testimony and any previous statements made bythe witness.
`You mayalso consider any consistencies or inconsistencies between the witness’s testimony and
`any other evidence that you credit. You may consider whether any inconsistencies are the result
`of lapses in memory, mistake, misunderstanding, intentional falsehood,or differencesin
`
`perception.
`You may consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness, the probability or
`improbability, of the testimony of a witness in determining whetherto acceptit as true and
`accurate. You may consider whetherthe witness has been contradicted or corroborated by other
`.
`evidencethat you credit.
`If you believe that any witness has shown him orherself to be biased or prejudiced, for or
`againsteither side in this trial, or motivated by self-interest, you may consider and determine
`whether such bias or prejudice has colored the testimony of the witnessso as to affect the desire
`
`and capability of that witness to tell the truth.
`You should give the testimony of each witness such weight as in your judgmentit is
`
`fairly entitled to receive.
`
`
`
`PoliceOfficer’sTestimony
`
`A police officer's testimony should be considered by youjust as any other evidence in the
`case. In evaluating the officer's credibility, you should use the same guidelines which you apply
`to the testimony of any witness. In no event should you give either greater or lesser weight to the
`testimony of any witness merely becauseheor sheis a police officer.
`
`

`

`RightofDefendantNottoTestify
`
`Every defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right notto testify. Mr. Reid has
`
`chosento exercise this right. You must not hold this decision against him, and it would be
`
`improper for you to speculate as to the reason or reasons for his decision. You must not assume
`
`the defendantis guilty because he chose notto testify.
`
`
`
`NatureofChargesNottobeConsidered
`
`One of the questions you were asked when wewereselecting this jury was whetherthe
`nature of the charges themselves would affect your ability to reach a fair and impartial verdict.
`
`Weasked you that question because you mustnotallow the nature of a charge to affect your
`verdict. You must consider only the evidence that has been presented in this case in reaching a
`fair and impartial verdict.
`
`Inadmissible and Stricken Evidence
`
`The lawyers in this case sometimes objected whenthe other side asked a question, made
`
`an argument, or offered evidence which the objecting lawyer believed was not proper. You must
`
`not hold such objections against the lawyer who made them or the party she or he represents. It
`
`is the lawyers’ responsibility to object to evidence which they believe is not admissible.
`
`If, during thetrial, I sustained an objection to a lawyer’s question, you should ignore the
`question, and you mustnot speculate as to what the answer would have been.
`If, after a witness
`answered a question,I ruled that the answer should be stricken, you should ignore both the
`question and the answerandthey should play no part in your deliberations. Likewise, exhibits as
`
`to which J have sustained an objection or that I ordered stricken are not evidence, and you must
`
`not consider them in your deliberations.
`
`
`
`ExhibitsDuringDeliberations
`
`I will be sending into the jury room with you the exhibits that have been admitted into
`
`evidence, except for the weaponat issue. You may examineanyorall of them as you consider
`your verdicts. Please keep in mind that exhibits that were only marked for identification but
`
`were not admitted into evidence will not be given to you to examine or consider in reaching your
`
`verdict.
`
`If you wish to examine the weapon,please notify the clerk by a written note, and the
`marshalwill bring them to you. For security purposes, the marshal will remain in the jury room
`
`

`

`while each of you has the opportunity to examinethis evidence. You should notdiscuss the
`evidenceor otherwise discuss the case among yourselves while the marshalis present in the jury
`
`room. You mayask to examinethis evidenceas often as youfindit necessary.
`
`Jury’s Recollection Controls
`
`If any reference by meorthe attorneys to evidence does not coincide with your own
`recollection of the evidence, it is your memory which should control during yourdeliberations.
`
`Nowwewill turn to the elements of the offenses with which Mr. Reid is charged:
`
`COUNT1: Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (Prior Conviction)
`
`Mr. Reid is charged with the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm (prior
`conviction). To prove that charge, the government must prove eachofthe following elements
`
`beyond a reasonable doubt:
`
`1. Mr. Reid possessed a firearm;
`
`2. He did so voluntarily and on purpose and not by mistake or accident;
`3. At the time Mr. Reid possessed the firearm, he had been convicted of a crime
`
`punishable by imprisonmentfor a term exceeding one year; and
`4. At the time Mr. Reid possessed the firearm, he knew that he had been convicted
`
`of a crime punishable by imprisonmentfor a term exceeding one year.
`
`A stipulation that Mr. Reid had been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment
`for a term exceeding one year, and knew that he had been convicted of a crime punishable by
`
`imprisonmentfor a term exceeding one year, was admitted only for the purpose of proving the
`last two elements of this charge. You are not to considerthat stipulation for any other purpose
`except as I have instructed you otherwise. You are not to speculate or guess as to what the
`conviction was for. You are not to consider the stipulation for determining whether it is more
`
`likely or not that Mr. Reid wasin possession of the firearm that is chargedin this case. Nor may
`you considerthat stipulation in determining whetherheis guilty of any other offenses charged in
`the case. Rather, you may only considerthestipulation of the prior conviction in determining
`whether the government has metits burdenofestablishing these specific elementsof the offense.
`
`

`

`The term “firearm” means a weapon,regardless of operability, which will, or is designed
`
`or redesigned, made or remade, readily converted, restored, or repaired, expel a bullet by the
`
`action of an explosive.
`
`“Possession” means to have physical possession or to otherwise exercise control over
`
`tangible property. A person may physically possess by holding it in his or her hand or by
`
`carryingit in or on his or her body or person. Mere presence near something or mere knowledge
`
`of its location, however, is not enough to show possession. To prove unlawful possession of a
`
`firearm by a person previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonmentfor a term
`
`exceeding one year against Mr. Reid in this case, the government must prove beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt that he had physical possession ofit.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT3:PossessionofUnregisteredFirearm
`
`Mr. Reid is charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. To prove this charge, the
`
`government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
`
`1. Mr. Reid possessed a firearm;
`
`2. He did so voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident;
`
`3. The firearm had not been registered to Mr. Reid as required by District of
`
`Columbia law.
`
`The term “firearm” means a weapon,regardless of operability, which will, or is designed
`
`or redesigned, made or remade, readily converted, restored, or repaired, expel a bullet by the
`
`action of an explosive.
`
`“Possession” means to have physical possession or to otherwise exercise control over
`
`tangible property. A person may physically possess by holdingit in his or her hand or by
`
`carrying it in or on his or her body or person. Mere presence near something or mere knowledge
`
`of its location, however, is not enough to show possession. To prove possession of an
`
`unregistered firearm against Mr. Reid in this case, the government must prove beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt that he had physical possessionofit.
`
`The governmentis not required to prove that Mr. Reid knew that the firearm was
`
`unregistered. It need not prove who ownedthe firearm or that the firearm wasregistered to
`
`anyone.
`
`

`

`COUNT4: Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
`
`Mr.Reid is charged with unlawful possession of ammunition. To provethis charge, the
`government must prove eachofthe following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
`1. Mr. Reid possessed ammunition;
`2. He did so voluntarily and on purpose, and not by mistake or accident; and
`
`3. He did so without having a valid registration certificate for a firearm.
`
`“Ammunition” meanscartridge cases, shells, projectiles, primers, bullets (including
`restricted pistol bullets), propellant powder, or devices or materials designed, redesigned or
`
`intended for use in a firearm or destructive device.
`
`“Possession” means to have physical possession or to otherwise exercise control over
`tangible property. A person may physically possess by holding it in his or her hand or by
`carrying it in or on his or her body or person. Mere presence near something or mere knowledge
`of its location, however, is not enough to show possession. To prove unlawful possession of
`ammunition against Mr. Reidin this case, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
`
`that he had physical possession ofit.
`
`Multiple Counts—One Defendant
`Each count charges a separate offense. You should consider each offense, and the
`evidence that applies to it, separately, and you should return separate verdicts as to each count.
`The fact that you mayfind the defendant guilty or not guilty on any one count should not
`
`influence your verdict with respect to any other count..
`
`Proof of State of Mind
`
`Someone's intent ordinarily cannot be proved directly, because there is no way of directly
`looking into the workings of the human mind. But you mayinfer the defendant's intent from the
`surrounding circumstances. You may consider any acts done or omitted by the defendant, and
`all other facts and circumstances received in evidence which indicate the defendant's intent.
`
`You may infer, but are not required to infer, that a person intends the natural and
`probable consequencesofacts he intentionally did or intentionally did not do. It is entirely up to
`you, however, to decide what facts to find from the evidence received duringthis trial. You
`
`

`

`should considerall the circumstances in evidence that you think are relevant in determining
`
`whether the governmenthas proved beyonda reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the
`
`necessary state of mind.
`
`I.
`
`POST-ARGUMENT INSTRUCTIONS
`
`Before I excuse you to deliberate, J need to discuss a few final instructions with you.
`
`
`
`SelectionofForeperson
`
`When youreturn to the jury room, you should first select a foreperson to preside over
`
`your deliberations and to be your spokesperson here in court. There are no specific rules
`
`regarding how you should select a foreperson. That is up to you. However, as you go about the
`
`task, be mindful of your mission—to reach a fair and just verdict based on the evidence.
`
`Consider selecting a foreperson who will be ableto facilitate your discussions, who can help you
`
`organize the evidence, who will encouragecivility and mutual respect amongall of you, who
`
`will invite each juror to speak up regarding his or her views about the evidence, and who will
`
`promote a full and fair consideration of that evidence.
`
`Unanimity of Verdict
`
`The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In order to return a
`
`verdict, each juror must agree to the verdict. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous.
`
`
`
`VerdictFormExplanation
`
`You will be provided with a Verdict Form for use when you have concluded your
`
`deliberations. The form is not evidencein this case, and nothing in it should be taken to suggest
`
`or convey any opinion by me as to what the verdicts should be. Nothing in the form replaces the
`
`instructions of law J have already given you, and nothing in the form replaces or modifies the
`
`instructions about the elements that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The
`
`form is only meantonly to assist you in recording your verdicts.
`
`Exhibits During Deliberations
`
`I will be sending into the jury room with you the exhibits that have been admitted into
`
`evidence. You may examineanyorall of them as you consider your verdicts. Please keep in
`
`10
`
`

`

`mindthat exhibits that were only markedfor identification but were not admitted into evidence
`will not be given to you to examineor consider in reaching your verdict.
`
`
`
`
`
`PossiblePunishmentofNoConcerntotheJury
`
`The question of possible punishmentof the defendant in the event of convictionis not a
`concern of yours and you should notlet it enter into or influence your deliberations in any way.
`The duty of imposing sentence in the event of conviction rests exclusively with me. Your
`verdict should be based solely on the evidencein this case, and you should not consider the
`
`matter of punishmentatall.
`
`
`
`CautionaryInstructiononPublicity,Communication,andResearch
`
`
`
`
`
`I would like to remind youthat, in somecases, although not necessarily this one, there
`maybe reports in the newspaperoron theradio, internet, or television concerning this case. If
`there should be such media coverage in this case, you may be temptedto read,listen to, or watch
`it. You mustnotread,listen to, or watch such reports because you mustdecide this case solely
`
`on the evidence presented in this courtroom. If any publicity about this trial inadvertently comes
`to your attention, do not discuss it with other jurors or anyoneelse. Just let me or my clerk know
`as soonafter it happens as you can, and I will then briefly discuss it with you.
`Asyouretire to the jury room to deliberate, I also wish to remind youof aninstructionI
`gave you at the beginning ofthe trial. During deliberations, you may not communicate with
`anyonenot on the jury about this case. This includes any electronic communication such as
`email or text or any blogging aboutthe case. In addition, you may not conduct any independent
`investigation during deliberations. This means you may not conduct any research in person or
`
`electronically via the internet or in another way.
`
`If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send
`a note by the clerk or marshal, signed by your foreperson or by one or more membersofthe jury.
`No memberofthe jury should try to communicate with me by any meansother than a signed
`note and I will never communicate with any memberofthe jury on any matter touching the
`
`merits of this case, except in writing or orally here in open court.
`Bear in mindalso that you are never, under any circumstances, to reveal to any person—
`not the clerk, the marshal or me—howthe jury stands on the questions of the defendant’s guilt or
`
`

`

`innocence until after you have reached a unanimousverdict. This means, for example, that you
`
`never shouldstate to the court that the jury is divided 6 to 6, 7 to 5, 11 to 1 or in any other
`
`fashion, whether for conviction or acquittal or on any other issue in the case.
`
`Attitude and Conduct of Jurors in Deliberations
`
`The attitude and conductofjurors at the beginning of their deliberations are matters of
`
`considerable importance. It may not be useful for a juror, upon entering the jury room, to voice a
`
`strong expression of an opinion on the case or to announce a determination to stand for a certain
`
`verdict. When one doesthat at the outset, a sense of pride may causethat juror to hesitate to
`
`back away from an announcedposition after a discussion of the case. Furthermore, many juries
`
`find it useful to avoid an initial vote uponretiring to the jury room. Calmly reviewing and
`
`discussing the case at the beginning ofdeliberations is often a more useful way to proceed.
`
`Rememberthat you are not partisans or advocatesin this matter, but you are judges ofthe facts.
`
`Excuse Alternate Jurors
`
`Before the jury begins deliberating, I need to excuse the alternate jurors. As I told you
`
`before, the selection of alternates was an entirely random process; it’s nothing personal. We
`
`selected two seats to be the alternate seats before any of you entered the courtroom. Sinceall of
`
`you have remained healthy andattentive, I can now excuse the jurors in seats #8 and #2.
`
`Before you two leave, I am going to ask youto tear out a page from your notebook, and
`
`to write down your name and daytime phone numberand handthis to the clerk.
`
`I do this because
`
`it is possible, though unlikely, that we will need to summon you backto rejoin the jury in case
`
`something happensto a regular juror. Since that possibility exists, I am also going to instruct
`
`you notto discuss the case with anyone until we call you. Myearlier instruction on use of the
`
`internetstill applies; do not research this case or communicate aboutit on the internet. In all
`
`likelihood, we will be calling you to tell you there has been a verdict and you are now free to
`
`discuss the case; there is, however, the small chance that we will need to bring you back on to
`
`the jury.
`
`Thank you very much for your service, and please report back to the jury office to turn in
`
`your badge on your way out.
`
`Delivering the Verdict
`
`For the rest of you, I will now mention how your verdict should be delivered:
`
`12
`
`

`

`When you havereachedyourverdict, just send me a note telling me you have reached
`yourverdict, and have your foreperson sign the note. Donottell me what your verdict is.
`I will
`find that out by asking your forepersonto state the verdict in open court after you have finished
`your deliberations and returned to court.
`
`Polling
`
`Donot be surprised when your verdict is returned if one of the parties asks that the jury
`be polled. The reason for polling the jury is because eachparty hasa right to be sure that your
`verdict is unanimous. “Polling” meansthat after the foreperson states your verdict, I will ask
`each of you individually whether your verdict agrees with that announced by your foreperson.
`Your job is easy. If you agree with the verdict, you should simply say “yes” when I call the
`numberof your jury seat. If you disagree in any way, you should simply say “no.” Do not say
`anything other than “yes” or “no” in responseto a poll of the jury, and do notsay anything
`during the poll unless and until your seat numberis called.
`
`You may nowretire to begin your deliberations.
`
`