levy jury instructions 1117

8/8/2019 Levy Jury Instructions 1117

1/18

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACriminal Division

UNITED STATESv.

INGMAR GUANDIQUEJudge FisherTrial: October 18,2010Case No. 09 CF1 9230

JURY INSTRUCTIONSLadies and Gentlemen, now that all of the evidence is in and you haveheard the closing arguments of the lawyers, the time has come for me to instructyou on the law that you must follow when you leave the courtroom and begindiscussing the case in the jury room.

Instruction 2.100 FURN|SHTNG THE JURY wtrH A copy oF THEINSTRUCTIONSI will provide you with a copy of my instructions. During your deliberations,you may, if you want, refer to these instructions. while you may refer to anyparticular portion of the instructions, you are to consider the initructions as awhole and you may not follow some and ignore others. lf you have any questionsabout the instructions, you should feel free to send me a note. please return yourinstructions to me when your verdict is rendered.

Instruction 1.10S NOTETAKTNG By JURORSDuring the trial, I have permitted those jurors who wanted to do so to takenotes. You may take your notebooks with you to the jury room and use tnemduring your deliberations if you wish. As I told you atifre beginning of the triat,your notes are only to be an aid to your memory. They are not evidence in thecase, and they should not replace your own memory of the evidence. Thosejurors who have not taken notes should rely on their own memory of theevidence. The notes are intended to be for the notetaker's own personal use.


2/18

Instruction 2.101 FUNCTTON OF THE COURTMy function is to conduct this trial in an orderly, fair, and efficient manner;to rule on questions of law; and to instruct you on the law that applies in thiscase.It is your duty to accept the law as I instruct you. You should consider allthe instructions as a whole. You may not ignore or iefuse to follow any of them.

Instruction 2.102 FUNCTTON OF THE JURYYour function, as the jury, is to determine what the facts are in this caseand to determine what the verdict shall be. You are the sole judges of the facts.While it is my responsibility to decide what is admitted as evidence during thetrial, you alone decide what weight, if any, to give to that evidence. you alonedecide the credibility or believability of the witnesses.You should determine the facts without prejudice, fear, sympathy, orfavoritism. You should not be improperry influenced by anyone'i race, etnnicorigin, or gender. Decide the case solely from a fair consideration of theevidence.You may not take anything I may have said or done as indicating how Ithink you should decide this case. lf you believe that I have expressed irindicated any such opinion, you should ignore it. The verdict in this case is alsoyour sole and exclusive responsibility.

f nstruction 2.103 JURY'S RECOLLECTTON CONTROLSlf any reference by me or the attorneys to the evidence is different fromyour own memory of the evidence, it is your memory that should control duringyour deliberations.

Instruction 1.202 PUBLtctw AND usE oF THE TNTERNETAs I have previously informed you, there may have been reports in thenewspaper or on the radio, internet, or television concerning the case. This maycontinue to be so during your deliberations. lt is just as impbrtant, perhaps evenmore so, that you not read, listen to, or watch such reports because you mustdecide this case solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom. it anypublicity about this trial inadvertently comes to your attention during yourdeliberations, do not discuss it with other jurors or anyone else. Juit'let me or my


3/18

clerk know as soon after it happens as you can, and I will then briefly discuss itwith you.And although you may now communicate with your fellow jurors about thecase - but only when you are together as a group of 12 engaged in deliberations-- you may not communicate with anyone not on the jury about this case. Thisincludes any electronic communication such as email or text or any bloggingabout the case. In addition, you may not conduct any independent-inve-tlgationduring deliberations. This means you may not conduct any research in person orelectronically via the internet or in another way.

fnstruction 2.104 EVIDENCE lN THE CASEDuring your deliberations, you may consider only the evidence properlyadmitted 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 stipulationsagreed to by the parties.During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulated--that is,agreed--to certain facts. You should consider any stipulation of fact to beundisputed evidence.During the trial, you were also told that the parties had stipulated to whattestimony certain witnesses would have given if they had testified in this case.You should consider this stipulated testimony to be exactly what each wouldhave said had s/he testified here.when you consider the evidence, you are permitted to draw, from thefacts that you find have been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel arejustified in the light of your experience.

Instruction 2.109 DlREcr AND crRcuMsrANTtAL EVtDENGEThere are two types of evidence from which you may determine what thefacts are in this case-direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. When awitness, such as an eyewitness, asserts actual knowledge of a fact, thatwitness's testimony is direct evidence. On the other hand, evidence of facts andcircumstances from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is circumstantialevidence.Let me give you an example. Assume a person looked out a window andsaw that snow was falling. lf he later testified in court about what he had seen,his testimony would be direct evidence that snow was falling at the time he saw ithappen' Assume, however, that he looked out a window and saw no snow on the


4/18

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 ithad snowed while he was asleep.The law says that both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptableas a means of proving a fact. The law does not favor one form of evidence overanother. lt is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particularevidence, whether it be direct or circumstantiil. You are permitied to give equalweight to both. Circumstantial evidence does not require a greater degree ofcertainty than direct evidence. In reaching a verdict in this .1s", you siouldconsider all of the evidence presented, both direct and circumstantial.

Instruction 2.105 STATEMENTS OF COUNSELThe statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. They areonly intended to assist you in understanding the evidence.

Instruction 2.500 REDACTED DOCUMENTSDuring the course of this trial, a number of exhibits were admitted inevidence. Sometimes only those parts of an exhibit that are relevant to yourdeliberations were admitted. where this has occurred, I have required theirrelevant parts of the exhibit or statement to be blacked out or deleted. Thus, asyou examine the exhibits, and you see or hear what appear to be omissions, youshould consider only the portions that were admitted. You should not guess as to

what has been taken out.

f nstruction 2.310 TRANscRrprs oF REGORDINGS tN ENGL|SHRecordings of conversations identified by witnesses have been received inevidence. Transcripts of these recorded conversations are being furnished foryour convenience a1{.Oujdance as you listen to the tapes to clarity portions ofthe tape which are difficult to hear, and to help you identify speakers. Where therecording is in English, the recording is the evidence in the case; the transcript isnot. In that instance, if you notice any difference between the transcript and the

recording, you must rely only on the recordings and not the transcript. In addition,if you cannot determine from the recording that particular words were spoken,you must disregard the transcript as far as those words are concerned.


5/18

f nstruction 2.311 TRANSGRIPTS oF RECORDTNG rN spANtsHI have also admitted as an exhibit a tape recording that is in Spanish,along with a written Spanish transcript and an English translation. tn ttratinstance, the parties have stipulated that the English translation is correct.Therefore, it is the English translation, and not the recording or the Spanishtranscription that is the evidence you must consider.Although some of you may know Spanish, it is important that alljurorsconsider the same evidence. Therefore, you must accept the English translationcontained in the transcript.lf, however, you have a question as to the accuracy of the Englishtranslation, you should bring this matter to my attention immediately. you shouldnot make any comment about the translation in the presence of the other jurors,or othenruise share your question or concern with any of them. I will take steps tosee if your question can be answered and any discrepancy resolved. lf, however,

after such efforts a discrepancy remains, you must rely only upon the officialEnglish translation provided by the court interpreter and not on your owntranslation.

lnstruction 1.112 lNADMlsstBLE AND srRrcKEN EV|DENGEThe lawyers in this case sometimes objected when the other side asked aquestion, made an argument, or offered evidence that the objecting lawyerbelieved was not proper. You must not hold such objections igainit the'1"*y"twho made them or the party s/he represents. lt is the lawyers' responsibilityioobject to evidence that they believe is not admissible.lf, during the course of the trial, I sustained an objection to a lawyer,squestion, you should ignore the question, and you must not speculate as to whatthe answer would have been. lf, after a witness answered a question, I ruled thatthe answer should be stricken, you shourd ignore both the question and theanswer and they should play no part in your deliberations. Likewise, exhibits asto which I have sustained an objection or that I ordered stricken are not evidence,and you must not consider them in your deliberations.

Instruction 1.104 QUESTTON NOT EVTDENCESometimes a lawyer's question suggests the existence of a fact, but thelawyer's question alone is not evidence. Whether or not something is in evidencedepends on the witness's answer to the lawyer's question.


6/18

Instruction 2.200 CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSESIn determining whether the government has established the chargesagainst the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider and weighthe testimony of all the witnesses who have appeared before you.You are the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses. You alone are todetermine whether to believe any witness and the extent to which any witnessshould be believed.In reaching a conclusion as to the credibility of any witness, you mayconsider any matter that may have a bearing on the subject. You may considerthe demeanor and the behavior of the witness on the witness stand; the witness'smanner of testifying; whether the witness impresses you as a truthful person;whether the witness impresses you as having an accurate memory andrecollection; whether the witness has any motive for not telling the truth; whetherthe witness had a full opportunity to observe the matters about which he or she

has testified; whether the witness has any interest in the outcome of this case, orfriendship or hostility toward other people concerned with this case.Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, or betweenthe testimony of different witnesses, may or may not cause you to discredit suchtestimony. Two or more persons witnessing an incident or transaction may see orhear it differently; an innocent mis-recollection, like a failure of recollection, is notan uncommon experience. ln weighing the effect of the inconsistency ordiscrepancy, always consider whether it pertains to a matter of important orunimportant detail, and whether the inconsistency or discrepancy results frominnocent error or intentional falsehood.You may consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness, theprobability or improbability, of the testimony of a witness in determining whetherto accept it as true and accurate. You may consider whether the witness hasbeen contradicted or supported by other credible evidence.lf you believe that any witness has shown himself or herself to be biasedor prejudiced, for or against either side in this trial, you may consider anddetermine whether such bias or prejudice has colored the testimony of thewitness so as to affect the desire and capability of that witness to tell the truth.

lnstruction 2.110 NATURE OF CHARGES NOT TO BE CONSIDEREDOne of the questions you were asked when we were selecting this jurywas whether the nature of the charges would affect your ability to reach a fairand impartial verdict. We asked you that question because you must not allowthe nature of a charge to affect your verdict. You must consider only the evidence


7/18

or lack of evidence that has been presented in this case in reaching a fair andimpartial verdict.

Instruction 2.111 NUMBER OF WITNESSESThe weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the number ofwitnesses testifying for each side, Rather, you should consider all the facts andcircumstances in evidence to determine which of the witnesses you believe. youmight find that the testimony of a smaller number of witnesses on one side ismore believable than the testimony of a greater number of witnesses on the otherside or you might find the opposite.

Instruction 2.106 INDICTMENT NOT EVTDENCEThe indictment is merely the formal way of accusing a person of a crime.You must not consider the indictment as evidence of any kind--you may notconsider it as any evidence of Mr. Guandique's guilt or draw any inference ofguilt from it.

Instruction 1.203 GHARGES THAT ARE No LONGER PEND|NGCertain charges against Mr. Guandique are no longer pending and thusare of no further concern to you. The charges that remain against Mr.Guandique are first degree felony murder (kidnapping) and first degree felony

murder (attempted robbery), and those two charges are contained in the VerdictForm. The fact that other charges are no longer pending should not in any wayinfluence your verdict as to the charges that remain in the case.

Instruction 2.211 REFUSAL oF wtrNEss ro ANSWER euEsloNsThe law requires every witness to answer all questions put to him, unlessthe judge rules otherwise. In this case, Gary Condit refused to answer certainquestions. You must not guess what Mr. Condit would have said if he had notrefused to answer the questions. However, in determining what weight to give hisother testimony, you may consider that Mr. Condit refused to answer somequestions.


8/18

INStTUCtiON 2.216 EVALUATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OFA WITNESSThe law treats prior inconsistent statements differently depending on thecircumstances in which they were made. I will now explain how you snJutoevaluate those statements.You have heard evidence that witnesses made statements on earlieroccasions that may be inconsistent with their testimony here at trial. lt is for youto decide whether a witness made such a statement and whether in fact it wasinconsistent with the witness's testimony here. lf you find such an inconsistency,you may consider the earlier statement in judging the credibility of the witness,but you may not consider it as evidence that wnjt was said in ihe earlierstatement was true.You also have heard evidence that witnesses made earlier statementsunder oath, subject to the penalty of perjury at the grand jury, and that these

statements may be inconsistent with their testimony here at trial. lf you find thatan earlier statement made under oath is inconsistent with a witness-'s testimonyhere in court, you may consider this inconsistency in judging the credibility of thewitness. However, unlike statements not made unoei oaih, you also mayconsider this earlier statement as evidence that what was said in the eailierstatement was true.

INStTUCtiON 2.217 EVALUATION OF PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OFWITNESSESYou have heard evidence that witnesses made statements on earlieroccasions that may be consistent with their testimony here at trial. These earlierstatements were brought to your attention both to heip you in evaluating thecredibility of these witnesses and as evidence in this case. ln other *or-ds, if youfind that an earlier statement is consistent with the witness's present testimony incourt, you may consider this consistency both in judging the credibility of thatwitness here at trial and as proof that what was said-in the earlier statement wastrue.It is for you to decide whether a witness made a statement on an earlieroccasion and whether it was in fact consistent with the witness's in-court

testimony here.


9/18

lnstruction 2.218 IMPEACHMENT BY PROOF OF CONVICTION OF ACRIME-WITNESSYou have heard evidence that witnesses have been convicted of a crimeor crimes. You may consider these convictions only in evaluating the credibility ofthat witness's testimony in this case.

f nstruction 2.207 POLICE OFFICER'S TESTIMONYA police officer's testimony should be evaluated by you just as any otherevidence in the case. In evaluating the officer's credibility, you should use thesame guidelines that you apply to the testimony of any witness. In no eventshould you give either greater or lesser weight to the testimony of any witnessmerely because s/he is a police officer.

lnstructio n 2.215 EXPERT TESTIMONYOrdinarily, a witness may not testify as to his/her opinions or conclusions.There is an exception for expert witnesses, who are allowed to give opinions andthe reasons for them because they have become expert in some art, science,profession, or calling.ln this case, severalwitnesses testified as experts in their respectivefields. You are not bound by an expert's opinion. lf you find that the opinion is notbased on sufficient education or experience, that the reasons supporting theopinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, youmay completely or partially disregard the opinion. You should consider thisevidence with all the other evidence in the case.

INStrUCtiON2.32lAOTHER CRIMES EVIDENCE ADMITTED TO SHOWIDENTIryYou have heard evidence that Ingmar Guandique was convicted ofcharges related to assaults upon two other women, Halle Shilling and ChristyWiegand, on May 14,2001and July 1,2001, respectively.You may use this evidence only for the limited purpose of decidingwhether the circumstances of the other crimes and charged offenses are sosimilar that it is likely that the person who committed the other assaults alsocommitted the offenses charged in this case.lf you conclude that the evidence of the other two assaults is so similar tothe charged offense[s] that it is likely that the same person committed both of


10/18

them, you may use this evidence in determining whether the government hasproved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guandique is the person whocommitted the offenses charged in this case.You may not use this evidence for any other purpose. lngmar Guandiqueis only on trial for the crimes charged. The defendant is not charged in this casewith any offense relating to the two prior assaults, and you may not use thisevidence to conclude that Mr. Guandique has a bad character, or that he has acriminal personality. The law does not allow you to convict a defendant simplybecause you believe he may have done bad things not specifically charged ascrimes in this case.

f nstruction 2.107 BURDEN OF PROOF-PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCEEvery defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. Thispresumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial unlessand until the government has proven he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.This burden never shifts throughout the trial. The law does not require Mr.Guandique to prove his innocence or to produce any evidence at all. lf you findthat the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of aparticular charge, it is your duty to find Mr. Guandique guilty of that offense. Onthe other hand, if you find the government has failed to prove any element of anoffense beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty to find Mr. Guandique notguilty of that charge.

Instruction 2.108 REASONABLE DOUBTThe government has the burden of proving Mr. Guandique guilty beyond areasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is morelikely true than not, or, in some cases, that its truth is highly probable. In criminalcases such as this 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 uponthe evidence or lack of evidence in the case. lf, after careful, honest, andimpartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmlyconvinced of the defendant's guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonableperson, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver ormore important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubtbased on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based on reason. Thegovernment is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematicalor scientific certainty. lts burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

10


11/18

f nstruction 2.208 RTGHT oF DEFENDANT Nor ro rESTtFy- Every defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify. Mr.Guandique has chosen to exercise this right. You must not hold this decisionagainst him, and it would be improper for you to speculate as to the reason orreasons for his decision. you must not assume the defendant is guilty b;;;;"he chose not to testify.

CHARGES & DEFENSESlnstructio n 2.402 MULT|pLE couNTS-oNE DEFENDANT

Each count on the verdict form charges a separate offense. you shouldconsider each offense, and the evidence which applies to it, separately, and youshould return separate verdicts as to each count.'ihe fact that yo, r"V find thedefendant guilty or not guilty on any one count listed on the verbict form shouldnot influence your verdict with respect to any other count of the verdict form.

At any time during your deliberations you may return your verdict of guiltyor not guilty with respect to any count.

Instruction 3.103 ,,ON OR ABOUT"The verdict form specifies that certain offenses were committed ,,on orabout" May 1 ,2CI01. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date ofthe alleged offense. lt is sufficient if the evidence in the case establishes beyond

a reasonable doubt that the offense was committed within a few days of the dateor date range alleged.

Instruction 2.401 A LESSER |NGLUDED oFFENsE-cENERALINSTRUCTIONIngmar Guandique is charged with two counts of first degree felonymurder. I am going to instruct you on these charges and also on tne lesserincluded offense of second degree murder. nfteil give you the elements of thesecrimes, I will tell you in what order you should consider them.

f nstruction 4.204 HOMIC|DE-FTRST DEGREE FELoNy MURDER(Kidnapping)The elements of the offense of first degree felony murder (kidnapping),each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt,'are that:

11


12/18

1. The defendant caused the death of Chandra Levy; and2. He did so while committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping.

The government need not prove that the defendant intended to kill Ms. Levy, Anykilling, even if done without the intent to kill and even if accidental, is murder inthe first degree if done while committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping.

I will now instruct you as to the elements of the offense of kidnapping:The elements of the offense of kidnapping, each of which the governmentmust prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are that:1. lngmar Guandique seized, confined, abducted or carried awayChandra Levy against her will.2. Ingmar Guandique did so voluntarily and on purpose, and not bymistake or accident; and3. Ingmar Guandique held or detained Chandra Levy for the purposeof assaulting her.The seizure does not have to be for monetary gain or for an illegalpurpose, but may be for any purpose that the defendant believes might benefithim.

Instruction 4.204 HoMlclDE-FtRsr DEGREE FELoNy MURDER(Attempted Robbery)The elements of the offense of first degree felony murder (attemptedrobbery), each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt,are that:1. The defendant caused the death of Chandra Levy; and2. He did so while committing or attempting to commit a robbery.

The government need not prove that the defendant intended to kill Ms. Levy. Anykilling, even if done without the intent to kill and even if accidental, is murder inthe first degree if done while committing or attempting to commit a robbery.I will now instruct you as to the elements of the offense of attempted

robbery:The elements of the offense of attempted robbery, each of which thegovernment must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are that:1. Ingmar Guandique committed an act which was reasonablydesigned to commit the crime of robbery;

tz


13/18

2. He intended to commit a robbery; and3. He did more than prepare to commit the crime. His act must havecome dangerously close to committing the crime of robbery.A robbery is the taking of property that has value from the immediate,

actual possession of a person, against his/her will, by means of force or violence.You may convict Ingmar Guandique of first degree felony murder(attempted robbery) even if the evidence shows the robbery was completed.

f nstruction 4.204 SECOND DEGREE MURDERThe elements of second degree murder, each of which the governmentmust prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are that:1. Ingmar Guandique caused the death of Chandra Levy; and2. At the time he did so, lngmar Guandique intended to kill or seriouslyinjure Chandra Levy or he acted in conscious disregard of anextreme risk of death or serious bodily injury to Chandra Levy.Second degree murder differs from first degree felony murder in that thegovernment need not prove that the killing occurred in the commission orittempted commission of a kidnapping oirobbery. But the government doesneed to prove that Ingmar Guandique either intended to kill or seriously injureChandra Levy, or acted in conscious disregard of an extreme risk of bodily injuryto Chandra Levy.

lnstruction 3.101 PROOF OF STATE OF MINDSomeone's intent or knowledge ordinarily cannot be proved directly,because there is no way of knowing what a person is actually thinking, but youmay infer someone's intent or knowledge from the surrounding circumstances.You may consider any statement made or acts done or omitted by the defendant,and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence which indicate hisintent or knowledge or lack thereof.

It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts to find from theevidence received during this trial. You should consider all the circumstances inevidence that you think are relevant in determining whether the government hasproved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guandique acted with the necessarystate of mind.

1?


14/18

Instruction 9.21 0 IDENTIFICATIONThe burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, notonly that the offense was committed as alleged in the indictment, but also thatIngmar Guandique was the person who committed it.In considering whether the government has proved beyond a reasonabledoubt that Ingmar Guandique is the person who committed the offense, you mayconsider any one or more of the following:1. For any witness who has made an identification, the witness'sopportunity to observe the criminal acts and the person committing them,including the length of the encounter, the distance between the various parties,the lighting conditions at the time, the witness's state of mind at the time of theoffense, and any other circumstances that you deem relevant affecting thewitness's opportunity to observe the person committing the offense;2. Any subsequent identification, failure to identify or misidentification bythe witness, the state of mind of the witness at the time of any subsequentidentification, the length of time that elapsed between the crime and anysubsequent identification and any other circumstances that you deem relevantbearing on the reliability of the witness's identification, and3. Any other direct or circumstantial evidence that may identify the personwho committed the offense charged or either support or not support iheidentification by the witness.You must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Ingmar Guandique

is the person who committed the offenses with which he is charged before youmay convict him. lf the circumstances of the identification of the defendant arenot convincing beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant notguilty.

lnstruction 9.100 DEFENDANT'S THEORY OF THE CASEMr. Guandique maintains that he had nothing to do with whateverhappened to Chandra Levy. Mr. Guandique maintains that the May 14 and July1,2001 incidents had nothing to do with whatever happened to Chandra Levyand that a different person or different people were involved in whatever it is ihathappened to Chandra Levy.

Instruction 2.4018 ORDER OF CONSTDERTNG CHARGESAs to each charge of first degree felony murder, you should consider firstwhether lngmar Guandique is guilty of that charge. lf you find him guilty of a

14


15/18

particular charge of first degree felony murder, do not consider the lesser-included offense of second degree murder related to that charge. lf you find himnot guilty of a particular charge of first degree felony murder, go on to considerthe lesser-included offense of second degree murder that relates to that charge.You must engage in this analysis as to each charge of first degree felony murder.This order will be reflected in the Verdict Form.

f nstruction 2.405 UNANIMITYYour verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and inorder to return a verdict, each juror must agree on the verdict. Your verdict as toeach charge of first degree felony murder and, where appropriate, the lesserincluded offense of second degree murder, must be unanimous.

lnstruction 2.502 SELECTION OF FOREPERSONWhen you return to the jury room, you should first select a foreperson topreside over your deliberations and to be your spokesperson here in court. Thereare no specific rules regarding how you should select a foreperson. That is up toyou. However, as you go about the task, be mindful of your mission--to reach afair and just verdict based on the evidence. Consider selecting a foreperson whowill be able to facilitate your discussions, who can help you organize theevidence, who will encourage civility and mutual respect among all of you, whowill 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.

lnstruction 2.501 EXHIBITS DURING DELIBERATIONSI will be sending into the jury room with you the exhibits that have beenadmitted into evidence. You may examine any or all of them as you consideryour verdicts. Please keep in mind that exhibits that were only marked foridentification but were not admitted into evidence will not be given to you toexamine or consider in reaching your verdict.

INStTUCtiON 2.505 POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT NOT RELEVANTThe question of possible punishment of the defendant in the event of aconviction is not a concern of yours and should not enter into or influence yourdeliberations in any way. The duty of imposing sentence in the event of aconviction rests exclusively with me. Your verdict should be based solely on theevidence in this case, and you should not consider the matter of punishment at

all.

15


16/18

f nstruction 2.407 VERDICT FORM EXPLANATIONYou will be provided with a Verdict Form for use when you haveconcluded your deliberations. The form is not evidence in this case, and nothingin it should be taken to suggest or convey any opinion by me as to what theverdicts should be. Nothing in the form replaces the instructions of law I have

already given you, and nothing in it replaces or modifies the instructions aboutthe elements of the offenses which the government must prove beyond areasonable doubt. The form is meant only to assist you in recording your verdict.In that regard, the form will give you guidance about the order in which you mightwant, but are not required, to consider the charges and related questions.

Instruction 2.509 COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COURT AND JURYDURING JURY'S DELIBERATIONSlf it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with

me, you may send a note by the clerk or marshal, signed by your foreperson orby one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should try tocommunicate with me except by such a signed note, and I will nevercommunicate with any member of the jury on any matter concerning the merits ofthis case, except in writing or orally here in open court. Please keep in mind thatwhen you send a note, it may take some time, for various reasons, for us torespond to your note. So, you should continue to deliberate until you aresummoned to the courtroom.Bear in mind also that you are never, under any circumstances, to revealto any person--not the clerk, the marshal or me--how jurors are voting until after

you have reached a unanimous verdict. This means that you should never tellme, in writing or in open court, how the jury is divided on any matter, for example,6 to 6, 7 to 5, or 1 1 to 1 , whether the vote is for conviction or acquittal or on anyother issue in the case.Once you have begun your deliberations, you may take breaks wheneveryou deem it appropriate, but you must inform me that you are doing so. Inaddition, you make take a one-hour lunch break when you feel it is appropriate,and you may either recess your deliberations for that one hour, or you may leaveto get food, but then reconvene as a group over lunch to continue yourdeliberations.Remember, too, that you may only deliberate as a body of 12. Thatmeans that if at any time during your deliberations one or more of the jurors hasto leave the room or is othenruise unable to participate in the deliberations, youmust stop your deliberations until all twelve of you are able to participate.

to


17/18

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIACriminal Division

UNITED STATES : Judge Fisherv. : Trial: October 19,2010INGMAR GUANDIQUE : Case No. 09 CFI 9230

VERDICT FORMFirst Deqree Felonv Murder (Kidnappinq)

As to the charge of First Degree Felony Murder (Kidnapping) of Chandra Levy,on or about May 1 ,2001, we the jury find Defendant lngmar Guandique

Not Guilty Guilty

lf you find Mr.Guandique "Not Guilty" of the charge of First Degree FelonyMurder (Kidnapping), go on to consider fhe /esser-included charge of Second DegreeMurderAs to the charge of Second Degree Murder of Chandra Levy, on or about May 1,

2001, we the jury find Defendant Ingmar Guandique

Not Guilty Guilty

First Deqree Felonv Murder (Attempted Robberv)As to the charge of First Degree Felony Murder (Attempted Robbery) of ChandraLevy, on or about May 1 ,2001, we the jury find Defendant Ingmar Guandique

Not Guilty Guilty

lf you find Mr.Guandique "Not Guilty" of the charge of First Degree FetonyMurder (Attempted Robbery), go on to consider fhe /esse r-included charge of SecondDegree Murder


18/18

As to the charge of Second Degree Murder of Chandra Levy, on or about May 1,2001, we the jury find Defendant Ingmar Guandique

Not Guilty Guilty

Date Jury Foreperson & Jury Number

levy jury instructions 1117

Documents