Final Jury Instructions
218 linesMR. ZELMAN: The principal instruction is proposed as it applies to intent.
MR. ZELMAN: 777.011 requires that the intent to commit a crime, it's in the plain language. Let me start over.
MR. ZELMAN: So, in other words, in order to be a principal, Ms. Adelson had to have a conscious intent that the criminal act be done, and that she did some act or said something intended to incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person to commit the crime.
MR. ZELMAN: Removing the intent to commit murder, we believe, in the proposed instructions runs counter to that.
MR. ZELMAN: So specifically...
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, as it relates to the intent to commit the crime — but there does not have to be an intent that a death occurred by the second-degree murder or manslaughter.
MR. ZELMAN: I think the way it's written, Your Honor, is confusing. That's my concern with the jury.
JUDGE EVERETT: Mr. Evans, Ms. Cappleman?
MR. EVANS: Your Honor, I believe that as it relates to second-degree murder, because this is from standard instructions, I think it is sufficiently covered. It's not saying that the state doesn't have to prove that the person intended the act; it's simply not necessary to prove that they intended the death to result from the act. And so I don't think anybody is going to be arguing that. I think the instruction is clear, the standard is clear on it.
JUDGE EVERETT: I think specifically as to that portion of this matter, Mr. Zelman, that does crystallize the issue. The state must argue there was intent that the crime be committed, but as far as there being an intent that the victim of the crime actually died, that is not required by second-degree murder as a standalone crime or as a principal matter. The same would apply to manslaughter as well.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to any objection that you wish to raise, I'll let you make it now.
MR. ZELMAN: Just a moment, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: What I'm about to make — what I'm about to request — I want to make sure that our client agrees with that.
MR. ZELMAN: Your Honor, given the court's ruling on that, we would ask that second-degree and manslaughter not be given.
JUDGE EVERETT: On what basis?
MR. ZELMAN: Your Honor, let me look at the charging document briefly.
MR. ZELMAN: Previously, Your Honor, it's our position that the two sentences at the end of the principal instruction — specifically, "For second-degree murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant intended the death of Daniel Markel," and "For manslaughter, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant intended the death of Daniel Markel" — as I indicated, it's a question of intent, and the principal instruction, the main portion, defendant intended the crime to occur. I just think it's confusing. I understand the state's position, but under the circumstances we would request — I request that the court not give those two lessers.
JUDGE EVERETT: One moment.
MR. EVANS: As I understand it, they're requesting just for count one simply to be guilty of first-degree murder or not guilty?
JUDGE EVERETT: No, no. Mr. Evans — to omit the lines pertaining to second-degree murder and manslaughter and the 3.5 sub A restructuring.
MR. ZELMAN: Mr. Evans' understanding of our request is accurate. We're asking that the two lessers for count one not be given. And that would eliminate the necessity for those two sentences in the principal instruction.
JUDGE EVERETT: What is the state's position?
MR. EVANS: We're fine with doing away with the lessers on all counts.
JUDGE EVERETT: On this matter, I will take a colloquy from Ms. — Adelson, please rise and raise your hand, if you would.
JUDGE EVERETT: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be true?
DONNA ADELSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE EVERETT: You can lower your hand. Ms. Adelson, do you understand that lesser-included crimes are something that is available depending on what is charged as a crime?
DONNA ADELSON: I understand that, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Do you also understand as well that if you waive your ability for the jury to make this finding, they can only make a finding as to what is charged — first-degree murder?
DONNA ADELSON: Yes, that's correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: In consulting with your attorneys, do you understand the strategy of waiving all lesser-included crimes?
DONNA ADELSON: I do, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Is there anything that you need to consult with them further about concerning this matter?
DONNA ADELSON: No, there is not.
JUDGE EVERETT: Then if she can be seated — after the majority of instructions, I will remove second-degree murder and manslaughter as options.
MR. ZELMAN: Given that, Your Honor, I believe moving the two principle instructions directly after count one would also be appropriate.
JUDGE EVERETT: I will remove any reference from second-degree murder and manslaughter principal, the principal instruction as well.
MR. EVANS: When you get through with that I did have one sentence I'd like to change I think I'd like for you to consider.
JUDGE EVERETT: Give me one moment.
JUDGE EVERETT: One moment.
JUDGE EVERETT: All right. Concerning the principal instructions, Mr. Evans.
MR. EVANS: Your Honor, the last line of both principal instructions, where it says — currently says — this instruction does not apply to count two. We would suggest that it be changed to: this instruction applies only to counts one and three. It does not apply to count two, in both areas.
MR. ZELMAN: Defense would concur.
JUDGE EVERETT: I'll make the requested change.
JUDGE EVERETT: Let me repeat it once again, so this reflects what is requested: this instruction only applies to counts one and three and does not apply to count two.
MR. EVANS: Yes, Your Honor. Given that principal applies to count three, I'll withdraw the request of a principal after count one. So it seems — it would be more consistent with the fact that principal applies to count three.
JUDGE EVERETT: The positioning of the instructions will be after — it will be count one.
JUDGE EVERETT: Introduction to homicide, count one, count two, count three.
JUDGE EVERETT: Principal 3.5 sub A, principal 3.5 sub B, intent, and then moving on to plea of not guilty, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof.
MR. EVANS: Yes, sir.
MR. EVANS: And I see you have added 10, the language that was agreed to by both sides.
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes. All right. As to the defense's request to move in certain portions of the 2014 and 2023 calendars under the rule of completeness — after reviewing this matter, the rule, and cases associated with it last night, at this time that is going to be denied, specifically as to the 2014 and 2023 calendars. These are not what the court would deem as a unified recording or writing. The calendars specifically are broken into separate documents by date. The 2014 calendar — any discussion of planning a party in no way connects with the license-plate information that has been entered into evidence, which was done by a witness who authenticated that page, the handwriting, and other matters to reach the admissibility threshold.
JUDGE EVERETT: As that would go to hearsay, without an exception or a witness testifying on the matter, it will not be admitted. As to the 2023 calendar, these are not united by time or would otherwise lend context between the entries themselves.
JUDGE EVERETT: Again, if there is a witness who would testify to these matters, that would change the analysis. However, that has not occurred.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to those two items, they will be made court exhibits if necessary for any future review.
MR. ZELMAN: May I be heard on the 2014, Your Honor?
JUDGE EVERETT: Go ahead.
MR. ZELMAN: One of the pages that the state included in — I believe it's 59A — the first page actually refers to the party, and in the state's demonstrative that was used through Sergeant Corbitt, they actually highlighted that language.
MR. ZELMAN: If I can approach... In the presentation that they had with Corbitt after the document was admitted into evidence — the document itself was admitted.
MR. ZELMAN: During his presentation, they highlighted language about the party.
MR. ZELMAN: So I think that changes the analysis. If I can approach and grab the exhibit, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please do.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to this particular page — are you making any arguments as to what's been admitted is certainly permitted. How are the other separate pages, which are separate writings, in any way connected to this as completeness?
MR. ZELMAN: It's all about the birthday party. Using the admission page alone creates a misleading impression.
JUDGE EVERETT: Again, the court's ruling remains the same. For the item that has been admitted, you can make all arguments that can be reasonably inferred from this admitted item concerning the birthday party.
JUDGE EVERETT: Beyond that, the writings are not connected. This is not an issue of completeness, as the court finds.
MR. ZELMAN: May we use the calendars as demonstratives during our closing?
JUDGE EVERETT: You certainly may.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Are there any other issues that we need to raise at this time by either party?
MR. ZELMAN: The verdict form, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Yes. Mr. Evans, as I discussed, on count two, to conform to the indictment, I ask — that count two — "we the jury find as folows" — as to count two of the indictment, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Additionally, the conforming where in the indictment.
JUDGE EVERETT: So you wish for it to read "conspiracy to commit first-degree murder"?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, please.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to the solicitation, do you wish for that to read the same way as well?
MR. ZELMAN: Yes, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: I believe that stays with the evidence.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any further issues concerning the jury instructions that needed to be addressed?
MR. EVANS: Your Honor, I just want to make sure — under the subsection which says the defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit, you did add "first-degree murder" there?
JUDGE EVERETT: The verdicts will read: count one, we the jury find as follows as to count one of the indictment, first-degree murder. The defendant is guilty of first-degree murder. The defendant is not guilty as to count one.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count two, we the jury find as follows as to count two of the indictment.
JUDGE EVERETT: Conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: The defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The defendant is not guilty as to count two.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count three, we the jury find as follows as to count three of the — I'm going to change that to "indictment" and not "information."
JUDGE EVERETT: Count three of the indictment. The defendant is guilty of solicitation to commit first-degree murder. The defendant is not guilty as to count three.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any further issues to raise concerning the jury instructions?
MR. EVANS: None from us, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: Not on that, Your Honor.
JUDGE EVERETT: Any other issues to raise?
MR. ZELMAN: I'd like to renew our motion for judgment of acquittal — same arguments as well as all previous motions and objections.
JUDGE EVERETT: Very well.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, the court has the same ruling: taking the evidence introduced throughout the trial in the light most favorable to the state, the state has met its burden to present all three counts to the jury.
JUDGE EVERETT: As to any review on this matter, the issue is preserved.
MR. ZELMAN: Thank you. And the last issue, Your Honor.
MR. ZELMAN: We had discussions yesterday concerning a corrections officer in the Uncanny Detention Center. We were able to get her served.
MR. ZELMAN: Our investigator was able to — an investigator was able to track her down.
MR. ZELMAN: Ms. Kessler, my paralegal, spoke with her afterwards. The information that she provided — it is our position that anything Officer Franklin would have to offer is not admissible, and that is why we did not seek to call her prior to resting.
JUDGE EVERETT: Well, parties can briefly approach before we bring the jurors, and we will have a brief break to allow the parties to get set — any demonstratives and presentations that they will need for closing arguments. Please inform the jurors that we will bring them out about 9:25. Until then, the parties may do what they need to do to set up to get ready. I will print the copies of the instructions. If anyone needs to stretch their legs, use the bathroom, please do so. As to all observers for the closing arguments today — and this is very important once again — you are not to make any gestures. You're not to make any facial movements. You're not to in any way indicate to the jurors that you agree or disagree with what is being argued or what is being said.
JUDGE EVERETT: Phones need to be put away and placed on silent or turned off. Does anyone have any questions?
JUDGE EVERETT: Given what was brought up yesterday — that there was either murmuring or some sort of improper influencing, or attempt to improperly influence the jury — that is not going to be permitted. You will be removed and also subject to contempt.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please raise your hands now if you have any questions. Otherwise, I expect you to conduct yourselves accordingly.
JUDGE EVERETT: We will resume at 9:25. The parties are to prepare for the closings at this point or all presentations and demonstrations.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may do so very quickly. Yes.
JUDGE EVERETT: Good morning, members of the jury.
JUDGE EVERETT: Before we get started with the instructions on the law and the closing arguments by the attorneys, I will have a stipulation to read to you.
JUDGE EVERETT: When the parties agree that certain facts are true, that is called a stipulation of fact. You must accept stipulated facts as having been proven.
JUDGE EVERETT: However, the significance of these facts, as with all facts, is for you to decide.
JUDGE EVERETT: In this case, the stipulated fact that you must accept as true is that Patricia Byrd was not listed by the current or previous defense counsel as a potential witness in this case.
JUDGE EVERETT: Does each juror have a copy of the jury instructions in their seats? Please raise your hands.
JUDGE EVERETT: For the record, each juror has been provided with a copy of the instructions. I am going to read these instructions out loud to you. You may follow along by reading as I read them out loud, or you may listen. The important thing is that you pay careful attention to the instruction on the law.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Donna 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Donna Adelson is accused of first-degree murder in count one of the indictment. If you find Daniel Markel was killed by Donna Adelson, you must then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: I now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before Donna Adelson may be found guilty of first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count one.
JUDGE EVERETT: To prove the crime of first-degree premeditated murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGE EVERETT: Element one: Daniel Markel is dead.
JUDGE EVERETT: Element two: the death was caused by the criminal act of Donna Adelson. Element three: there was a premeditated killing of Daniel Markel.
JUDGE EVERETT: An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
JUDGE EVERETT: "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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count two.
JUDGE EVERETT: To prove the crime of criminal conspiracy, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGE EVERETT: Element one.
JUDGE EVERETT: The intent of Donna Adelson was that the offense of first-degree murder would be committed.
JUDGE EVERETT: Element two: in order to carry out the intent, Donna Adelson agreed, conspired, combined, or confederated with Charlie Adelson or Katherine Magbanua or other persons to cause first-degree murder to be committed, either by them, or one of them, or by some other person.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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. Count three. To prove the crime of criminal solicitation, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGE EVERETT: Element one.
JUDGE EVERETT: Donna Adelson solicited Charlie Adelson or Katherine Magbanua or other persons to commit first-degree murder. Element two.
JUDGE EVERETT: During the solicitation, Donna Adelson commanded, encouraged, hired, or requested Charlie Adelson or Katherine Magbanua or other persons to engage in specific conduct which would constitute the commission of first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is not necessary that the defendant do any act in furtherance of the offense solicited.
JUDGE EVERETT: The crime of first-degree murder has been previously defined in these instructions.
JUDGE EVERETT: To "solicit" means to ask earnestly or to try to induce another person to engage in specific conduct.
JUDGE EVERETT: If the defendant helped another person or persons commit a crime, the defendant is a principal and must be treated as if she had done all the things the other person or persons did, if the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt: one, the defendant intended the crime to occur; and two, the defendant did some act or said something that was intended to, and that did, incite, cause, encourage, assist, or advise the other person or persons to actually commit the crime.
JUDGE EVERETT: To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present when the crime is committed or attempted.
JUDGE EVERETT: For first-degree premeditated murder, the state must prove the defendant intended that the killing of Daniel Markel occurred.
JUDGE EVERETT: This instruction only applies to count one and three and does not apply to count two.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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 she had done all of the things the person who was promised or received the money did, if the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt: one, the defendant intended the crime to occur; and two, she made or promised the payment in exchange for the commission of, or promise to commit, the crime, or to help commit the crime; and three, the crime was committed by the other person. To be a principal, the defendant does not have to be present when the crime is committed. This instruction only applies to count one and three and does not apply to count two. 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used, you must consider the following.
JUDGE EVERETT: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all doubt.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.
JUDGE EVERETT: A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or lack of evidence.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
JUDGE EVERETT: You should consider how the witnesses acted as well as what they said.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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?
JUDGE EVERETT: Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?
JUDGE EVERETT: Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney's questions? Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?
JUDGE EVERETT: Does the witness's testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?
JUDGE EVERETT: Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment, or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify? Has any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness's testimony?
JUDGE EVERETT: Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?
JUDGE EVERETT: Has the witness been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving dishonesty?
JUDGE EVERETT: Was the witness present in the courtroom during the testimony of another witness or other witnesses?
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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: Check on what's happening in the hallroom.
JUDGE EVERETT: Expert witnesses are like other witnesses, with one exception: the law permits an expert witness to give his or her opinion.
JUDGE EVERETT: However, an expert's opinion is reliable only when given on a subject about which you believe him or her to be an expert.
JUDGE EVERETT: Like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony.
JUDGE EVERETT: You must consider the testimony of some witnesses with more caution than others.
JUDGE EVERETT: For example, a witness who claims to have helped the defendant commit a crime or hopes to gain more favorable treatment in his or her own case may have a reason to make a false statement in order to strike a good bargain with the state.
JUDGE EVERETT: This is particularly true when there is no other evidence tending to agree with what the witness says about the defendant.
JUDGE EVERETT: So while a witness of that kind may be entirely truthful when testifying, you should consider her testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony the witness would give if called to the courtroom.
JUDGE EVERETT: The witness should not be discredited by talking to a lawyer about his or her testimony.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: The Constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against the defendant.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything, nor is the defendant required to prove her innocence. It is up to the state to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence. The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by her decision. No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case.
JUDGE EVERETT: There are some general rules that apply to your discussion.
JUDGE EVERETT: You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number one: you must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice.
JUDGE EVERETT: There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case.
JUDGE EVERETT: All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number two: 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 and evidence, and these instructions.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number three: this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number four: remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number five: your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in accord with the law.
JUDGE EVERETT: It is the judge's job to determine a proper sentence if the defendant is found guilty.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number six: whatever verdict you render must be unanimous. That is, each juror must agree to the same verdict.
JUDGE EVERETT: Number seven: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Deciding a verdict is exclusively your job.
JUDGE EVERETT: I cannot participate in that decision in any way.
JUDGE EVERETT: Please disregard anything I may have said or done that made you think I preferred one verdict over another.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: A finding of guilty or not guilty as to one crime must not affect your verdict as to the other crimes charged.
JUDGE EVERETT: You may find the defendant guilty as charged, or guilty of such lesser-included crimes as the evidence may justify, or not guilty.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you return a verdict of guilty, it should be for the highest offense on the verdict form that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGE EVERETT: If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then of course your verdict must be not guilty.
JUDGE EVERETT: The verdict must be unanimous. That is, all of you must agree to the same verdict.
JUDGE EVERETT: Only one verdict may be returned as to the crime charged.
JUDGE EVERETT: The verdict must be in writing, and for your convenience the necessary verdict form has been prepared for you. It is as follows.
JUDGE EVERETT: There is only one verdict form, which I am in possession of right now, but I will read to you all of the options that are available on the verdict form.
JUDGE EVERETT: State of Florida versus Donna Adelson, defendant. Case number 2023-CF-3226. Verdict, Count One: We, the jury, find as follows as to Count One of the indictment, first-degree murder. Check only one letter choice as to this count. Letter option A: the defendant is guilty of first-degree murder. Letter option B: the defendant is not guilty as to Count One.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count 2.
JUDGE EVERETT: We, the jury, find as follows as to Count 2 of the indictment: conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Check only one letter choice as to this count.
JUDGE EVERETT: Letter option A:
JUDGE EVERETT: The defendant is guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Letter option B:
JUDGE EVERETT: The defendant is not guilty as to Count 2.
JUDGE EVERETT: Count 3.
JUDGE EVERETT: We, the jury, find as follows as to Count 3 of the indictment: solicitation to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Check only one letter choice as to this count.
JUDGE EVERETT: Letter option A: the defendant is guilty of solicitation to commit first-degree murder.
JUDGE EVERETT: Letter option B: the defendant is not guilty as to Count 3. And then the verdict form is to be signed and dated by the individual who will serve as the foreperson.
JUDGE EVERETT: Both the state and the defendant have now rested their case. The attorneys now will 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: 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.
JUDGE EVERETT: Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than each juror's memory of the evidence.