1.Jury Instructions

JUDGE EVERETT: Good morning. Everyone can be seated.

Before I ran the jury instructions for both the jurors and the parties, did anyone have anything to raise concerning them?

JUDGE EVERETT: Very well. I believe there aren't any attempts that are a part of the charged offenses, just completed offenses, so I will remove "attempted."

Is there anything else?

JUDGE EVERETT: All right. It's going to take a few minutes to go through this, which is why I wanted you to e-mail me. However, we'll get started as soon as this is done.

Is there anything else that we need to address?

JUDGE EVERETT: Very well. It will be sent back.

Any other issues?

JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated. You can pass those out.

For everyone in the gallery, I just want to give a reminder once again, as the closing arguments are taking place, do not make any gestures; do not shake your head that you're in agreement or disagreement. Please silence your devices, and also, as well, do not have any cameras that are pointed at either the jury or the litigants.

You can put the 15 in the seats.

JUDGE EVERETT: That would be the very thing I'm talking about. Please get it on silent now.

You can go ahead and bring in the jurors.

JUDGE EVERETT: Everyone can be seated.

Members of the jury, good morning. Now that the evidence has closed in the case, I am going to be giving you your instructions on the law itself. A copy of the jury instructions that I will be reading to you has been placed in your chairs. If you wish to follow along as I read to you, that is certainly your choice. If you just wish to listen as I read it out loud, you may do so as well. After these instructions have been given, the attorneys are going to give you their closing arguments.

Let's get started at header 3.1, Introduction to Final Instructions. Members of the jury, I thank you for your attention during this trial. Please pay attention to the instructions I am about to give you.

Charles Adelson, the defendant in this case, has been accused of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and solicitation to commit first-degree murder.

Charles Adelson is accused of first-degree murder in Count I of the indictment. I will now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before Charles Adelson may be found guilty of first-degree murder.

To prove the crime of first-degree premeditated murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element one, Daniel Markel is dead; element two, the death was caused by the criminal act of Charles Adelson; element three, there was a premeditated killing of Daniel Markel.

An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

If the defendant helped another person or persons commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if he had done all the things the other person or persons did if the defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done; and the defendant did some act or said some word which was intended to and which did incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit the crime. To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present when the crime is committed.

If the defendant paid or promised to pay another person or persons to commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if he had done all of the things the person who was promised or received the money did if: The defendant had a conscious intent that the criminal act be done; and he made or promised the payment in exchange for the commission or promise to commit the crime or to help commit the crime; and the crime was committed by Sigfredo Garcia and/or Luis Rivera. To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present when the crime is committed.

To prove the crime of criminal conspiracy, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: The intent of Charles Adelson was that the offense of first-degree murder would be committed; in order to carry out the intent, Charles Adelson agreed, conspired, combined, or confederated with Katherine Magbanua and/or other co-conspirators to cause the first-degree murder to be committed either by them, or one of them, or by some other person.

It is not necessary that the agreement, conspiracy, combination, or confederation to commit first-degree murder be expressed in any particular words or that words pass between the conspirators. It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense conspired.

JUDGE EVERETT: To prove the crime of criminal solicitation, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt: Element one, Charles Adelson solicited Katherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia, and/or Luis Rivera to commit first-degree murder; element two, during the solicitation, Charles Adelson commanded, encouraged, hired, or requested Katherine Magbanua, Sigfredo Garcia, and/or Luis Rivera to engage in specific conduct which would constitute the commission of first-degree murder. It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense solicited.

The crime of first-degree murder has been previously defined in these instructions.

To "solicit" means to ask earnestly or to try to induce another person to engage in specific conduct.

The intent with which an act is done is an operation of the mind and, therefore, is not always capable of direct and positive proof. It may be established by circumstantial evidence like any other fact in a case.

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed, and the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used, you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary, or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt.

On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing, and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one -- but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt, and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence. If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?

Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment, or other benefit in order to get this witness to testify?

Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness's testimony?

Did the witness, at some other time, make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?

Has the witness been convicted of a felony?

Whether the State has met its burden of proof does not depend upon the number of witnesses it has called or upon the number of exhibits it has offered, but instead upon the nature and quality of the evidence presented.

The fact that a witness is employed in law enforcement does not mean that his or her testimony deserves more or less consideration than that of any other witness.

JUDGE EVERETT: Expert witnesses are like any other witness with one exception. The law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion. However, an expert's opinion is reliable only when given on a subject about which you believe him or her to be an expert. Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.

You must consider the testimony of some witnesses with more caution than others. For example, a witness who claims to have helped the defendant commit a crime, has been promised immunity from prosecution, or hopes to gain more favorable treatment in her own case may have a reason to make a false statement in order to strike a good bargain with the State. This is particularly true when there is no other evidence tending to agree with what the witness says about the defendant.

So while a witness of that kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should consider his or her testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. However, if the testimony of such a witness convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt or the other evidence in the case does so, then you should find the defendant guilty.

The defendant in this case has become a witness. You should apply the same rules to consideration of his testimony that you apply to the testimony of other witnesses.

It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom. The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the credibility of any witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

There are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:

1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.

2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.

3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone.

4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.

5. Your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accord with the law. It will be my job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

6. Whatever verdict you render must be unanimous; that is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.

7. Your verdict should not be influenced by feelings of prejudice, bias, or sympathy. Your verdict must be based on the evidence and on the law contained in these instructions.

Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job. I cannot participate in that decision in any way. Please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I preferred one verdict or another.

A separate crime is charged in each count of the indictment, and although they have been tried together, each crime and the evidence applicable to it must be considered separately and a separate verdict returned as to each. A finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your verdict as to the other crimes charged.

You may find the defendant guilty as charged or not guilty. If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the offense on the verdict form that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then, of course, your verdict must be not guilty.

The verdict must be unanimous; that is, all of you must agree to the same verdict. Only one verdict may be returned as to the crime charged. The verdict must be in writing, and for your convenience, the necessary verdict form has been prepared for you. It is as follows:

And there's actually only one verdict form because we're not going to introduce chaos into the case, but I will read it to you now.

JUDGE EVERETT: State of Florida versus Charles Adelson, Case No. 2016-CF-3036B. We, the jury, find as follows as to Count I of the indictment, first-degree murder. Check only one letter choice as to this count. Option A, the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder; option B, the defendant is not guilty as to Count I.

Count II. We, the jury, find as follows as to Count II of the indictment, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Check only one letter choice as to this count. Option A, the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder; option B, the defendant is not guilty as to Count II.

Count III. We, the jury, find as follows as to Count III of the indictment, solicitation to commit first-degree murder. Check only one letter choice as to this count. Option A, the defendant is guilty of solicitation to commit first-degree murder; option B, the defendant is not guilty as to Count III.

And then it is to be signed and dated by the individual who will serve as the foreperson.

Both the State and the defendant have now rested their cases. The attorneys will now present their final arguments. Please remember that what the attorneys say is not evidence or your instruction on the law. However, do listen closely to their arguments. They are intended to aid you in understanding the case. Each side will have equal time, but the State is entitled to divide this time between an opening argument and a rebuttal argument after the defense has given its closing argument.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your memory of the evidence, and you should not be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror's memory of the evidence.

Is the State prepared to give its closing?