pec tut assoc ai lwtsis es

13
Spectus 'Technologies, inc. 149 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 (415) 688-6789 DecisionQuest 655 'Deep Valley Drive juiie 100 Wolfing Al& Estates, CA 90274 UEST 1(1)544-7111 Failure Analysis Associatts, inc. 149 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park CA 94025 (415)326-9400 DECISION S PEC TUt TECIINCL00II1 - allure sis lwt es Ai Assoc

Upload: others

Post on 18-Nov-2021

4 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Spectus 'Technologies, inc. 149 C

omm

onwealth D

rive M

enlo Park, C

A 94025

(415) 688-6789

DecisionQ

uest 655 'D

eep Valley D

rive juiie 100 W

olfing Al&

Estates, C

A 90274

UE

ST

1(1)544-7111

Failure Analysis A

ssociatts, inc. 149 C

omm

onwealth D

rive M

enlo Park C

A 94025

(415)326-9400

DE

CIS

ION

SP

EC

TU

t T

EC

IINC

L00II1

-

allure sis lwt es

Ai

A

ssoc

"The T

rial of th

e Cen

tury

" (U

nited States vs. L

ee Harvey O

swald)

an

Am

erican Bar A

ssociation

Section of L

itigation

Presidential S

howcase P

rogram

Sponsored by

the Trial P

ractice and Trial E

vidence Com

mittees

Program

Coordinators:

Peter B

. Freem

an, Esq.

Jenner and Block

Donald E

. Vinson, P

h.D.

August 10-11, 1992

San F

rancisco, California

Office o

f the A

ttorn

ey G

eneral U

nited

States U

nited

States F

ederal D

istrict Cou

rt N

orthern

District of T

exas, Dallas D

ivision

Un

ited S

tates

v.

Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald

Plaintiffs,

Defen

dan

t.

Case N

o. CR

1992 IN

DIC

TM

EN

T

The F

ederal G

rand Ju

ry fo

r the U

nited

States u

pon th

eir oath

and in

th

e nam

e and

by

the au

tho

rity o

f the U

nited

States F

ederal G

ov

ernm

ent,

does h

ereby ch

arge th

e follo

win

g o

ffense u

nder th

e United

States C

ode:

Th

at on

No

vem

ber 2

2, 1

96

3 at an

d w

ithin

the C

ou

nty

of D

allas in th

e S

tate of T

exas, L

ee Harv

ey O

swald

com

mitted

the crim

e of

AS

SA

SS

INA

TIO

N O

F T

HE

PR

ES

IDE

NT

OF

TH

E U

NIT

ED

ST

AT

ES

in v

iolatio

n o

f Title 1

8, S

ection

17

51

of th

e Un

ited S

tates Co

des in

that h

e, after d

eliberatio

n an

d w

ith th

e inten

t to cau

se the d

eath o

f the P

residen

t of

the U

nited

States, cau

sed th

e death

of P

residen

t John F

itzgerald

Ken

ned

y

with

a dead

ly w

eapon, n

amely

a Man

nlich

er-Carcan

o rifle co

ntrary

to th

e fo

rm o

f the S

tatute an

d ag

ainst th

e peace an

d d

ign

ity o

f the P

eop

le of th

ese U

nited

States.

A T

RU

E B

ILL

Fo

reperso

n o

f the G

rand

Jury

Atto

rney

Gen

eral

DA

TE

D: A

pril 16, Y

R-1

2 3

Un

ited S

tates Fed

eral District C

ourt

United

States

No.

Plaintiffs,

VS

.

PR

OP

OS

ED

JUR

Y

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

L

ee Harv

ey O

swald

D

efendan

t.

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 1

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 2

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 3

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 4

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 5

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 6

Prelim

inary Instruction— D

uty of Jury an

d O

utlin

e of T

rial P

reliminary Instruction—

Presum

ption of In

nocen

ce P

reliminary Instruction—

Ruling O

n O

bjectio

ns

Prelim

inary Instruction— W

hat Is Not

Evid

ence

Prelim

inary Instruction— C

redibility of W

itnesses

Prelim

inary Instruction— E

vidence for L

imited

Purp

ose

INS

TR

UC

TIO

NS

AT

EN

D O

F C

AS

E

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 7

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 8

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 9

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 10

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 11

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 12

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 13

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 14

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 15

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 16

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 17

PR

OP

OS

ED

INS

TR

UC

TIO

N N

O. 18

Duties o

f Jury

to F

ind F

acts and F

ollo

w

the L

aw

Jury

to C

onsid

er Only

This D

efendan

t, N

ot W

heth

er Oth

ers Hav

e Com

mitted

C

rimes

Charg

e Again

st Defen

dan

t, P

resum

ptio

n o

f Innocen

ce and B

urd

en

of Proof

Reaso

nab

le Doubt

Direct an

d C

ircum

stantial E

vid

ence

Stip

ulatio

ns o

f Fact

Stip

ulated

Testim

ony

Consciousness of G

uilt from U

sing F

alse Nam

e G

uilty

Know

ledge fro

m C

landestin

e B

ehavior C

onsciousness of Guilt from

Flight

Opin

ion E

vid

ence—

Expert W

itnesses

Retu

rn o

f Verd

ict

4 5

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 1

Prelim

inary In

struction

- Du

ty of Jury an

d O

utlin

e of Trial

Lad

ies and G

entlem

en:

Befo

re the trial b

eg - ins, I w

ant to

briefly

explain

what w

ill hap

pen

and

describ

e your ro

le as juro

rs. T

his is a crim

inal case b

roug

ht b

y th

e Un

ited S

tates Go

vern

men

t ag

ainst th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald. T

he G

ov

ernm

ent ch

arges th

e d

efend

ant, L

ee Harv

ey O

swald

, with

Idlin

g P

residen

t Joh

n F

. Ken

ned

y o

n

No

vem

ber 2

3, 1

96

3, in

Dallas, T

exas. T

he ch

arge ag

ainst th

e defen

dan

t is co

ntain

ed in

the in

dictm

ent. T

he in

dictm

ent is sim

ply

a descrip

tion o

f the

charg

e mad

e by

the G

ov

ernm

ent ag

ainst th

e defen

dan

t; it is no

t evid

ence

of an

yth

ing

. A

s the trial b

egin

s, each sid

e may

mak

e an o

pen

ing statem

ent. A

n

open

ing statem

ent is n

ot ev

iden

ce. It is simply

an o

utlin

e to h

elp y

ou

un

derstan

d w

hat th

e attorn

eys fo

r the G

ov

ernm

ent an

d d

efend

ant w

ill ex

pect th

e evid

ence w

ill show

. T

he g

ov

ernm

ent w

ill then

presen

t its evid

ence an

d co

un

sel for

defen

dan

t may

cross-ex

amin

e the G

overn

men

t witn

esses. Follo

win

g th

e G

ov

ernm

ent's case, th

e defen

dan

t may

presen

t evid

ence an

d th

e G

overn

men

t's counsel m

ay cro

ss-exam

ine th

e defen

se witn

esses. After all

the ev

iden

ce has b

een p

resented

, the atto

rney

s will m

ake th

eir closin

g

argum

ents to

sum

marize an

d in

terpret th

e evid

ence fo

r you, an

d I w

ill in

struct y

ou o

n th

e law. A

fter that, y

ou w

ill go to

the ju

ry ro

om

to

delib

erate on y

our v

erdict.

It will b

e yo

ur d

uty

to d

ecide fro

m th

e evid

ence w

hat th

e facts are. Y

ou

, and

yo

u alo

ne are th

e jud

ges o

f the facts. Y

ou

will h

ear the ev

iden

ce, d

ecide w

hat th

e facts are. and

then

app

ly th

ose facts to

the law

wh

ich I

will g

ive y

ou. T

hat is h

ow

you w

ill reach y

our v

erdict. T

he ev

iden

ce will

consist o

f the testim

ony o

f witn

esses, docu

men

ts, and o

ther th

ings

received

into

evid

ence as ex

hib

its and an

y facts o

n w

hich

the law

yers

agree o

r which

I may

instru

ct you to

accept.

You sh

ould

not tak

e anyth

ing I m

ay say

or d

o d

urin

g th

e trial as in

dicatin

g w

hat I th

ink

of th

e evid

ence o

r wh

at yo

ur v

erdict sh

ou

ld b

e.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 2

Prelim

inary In

struction

- Presu

mp

tion of In

nocen

ce In

ord

er to h

elp y

ou fo

llow

the ev

iden

ce, I will n

ow

giv

e yo

u a b

rief su

mm

ary o

f the elem

ents o

f the crim

e wh

ich th

e Go

vern

men

t mu

st pro

ve

to m

ake its case:

(1) That th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald sh

ot P

residen

t John F

. K

ennedy on Novem

ber 22, 1963 in Dallas, T

exas. (2) T

hat a sh

ot fired

by th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald cau

sed th

e death

of P

residen

t John F

. Ken

ned

y; an

d

(3) Th

at the d

efend

ant L

ee Harv

ey O

swald

acted d

eliberately

and

w

ith th

e inten

t to k

ill Presid

ent Jo

hn F

. Ken

ned

y.

The d

efendan

t has p

leaded

not g

uilty

to th

e charg

e and h

e is presu

med

innocen

t unless an

d u

ntil th

e Govern

men

t has p

roven

each

elemen

t of th

e charg

e bey

on

d a reaso

nab

le do

ub

t. Please rem

emb

er that,

un

der o

ur sy

stem o

f justice, a d

efend

ant h

as the rig

ht to

remain

silent an

d

nev

er has to

pro

ve in

no

cence o

r presen

t any

evid

ence.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns §

1.0

2

(1992 ed).

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 3

Prelim

inary In

struction

-Ru

ling O

n O

bjection

s T

here are ru

les of ev

iden

ce wh

ich co

ntro

l wh

at can b

e received

into

ev

iden

ce. Wh

en a law

yer ask

s a qu

estion

or o

ffers an ex

hib

it into

evid

ence

and th

e lawyer o

n th

e oth

er side th

inks th

at it is not p

ermitted

by th

e rules

of ev

iden

ce, that law

yer m

ay o

bject. If I o

verru

le the o

bjectio

n, th

e qu

estion

m

ay b

e answ

ered o

r the ev

iden

ce received

. If I sustain

the o

bjectio

n, th

e q

uestio

n can

no

t be an

swered

. If an o

bjectio

n is su

stained

, you sh

ould

ig

nore th

e questio

n an

d sh

ould

not g

uess w

hat th

e answ

er would

hav

e b

een. S

ource: N

inth

Circu

it Instru

ction

s, § 1

.06

Source:

Model C

rimin

al Jury

Instru

ctions fo

r the

Nin

th C

ircuit (h

ereinafter "N

inth

Circu

it In

structio

ns"), §

1.0

1 an

d §

1.1

1.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 4

Prelim

inary In

struction

- Wh

at Is Not E

viden

ce T

he fo

llow

ing

thin

gs are n

ot ev

iden

ce, and

yo

u m

ust n

ot co

nsid

er th

em as ev

iden

ce in d

ecidin

g th

e facts on

the case:

(1) Statem

ents an

d arg

um

ents o

f the atto

rney

s: (2) Q

uestio

ns an

d o

bjectio

ns o

f the atto

rney

; (3) T

estimo

ny

that I in

struct y

ou

to d

isregard

.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

1.0

3

6 7

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 5

Prelim

inary In

struction

- Cred

ibility of W

itnesses

In d

ecidin

g th

e facts of th

is case, you m

ay h

ave to

decid

e which

w

itnesses to

believ

e and w

hich

witn

esses not to

believ

e. You m

ay b

elieve

every

thin

g a w

itness say

s or o

nly

part o

f it or n

one o

f it. In

decid

ing w

hat to

believ

e, you m

ay co

nsid

er a num

ber o

f factors,

inclu

din

g th

e follo

win

g:

(1) The w

itnesses' ab

ility to

see or h

ear or k

now

the th

ings th

e w

itness testified

to;

(2) The q

uality

of th

e witn

esses' mem

ory

; (3) T

he w

itnesses' m

anner w

hile testify

ing;

(4) Wheth

er the w

itness h

as an in

terest in th

e outco

me o

f the case o

r an

y m

otiv

e, bias o

r preju

dice;

(5) Wheth

er the w

itness w

as contrad

icted b

y an

yth

ing th

e witn

ess said

or w

rote b

efore trial o

r by an

y o

ther ev

iden

ce; (6) H

ow

reasonab

le was th

e witn

esses' testimony w

hen

consid

ered

in lig

ht o

f oth

er evid

ence w

hich

we b

elieve.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

1.0

7.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 6

Prelim

inary In

struction

- Evid

ence for L

imited

Pu

rpose

Som

e evid

ence m

ay b

e adm

itted fo

r a limited

purp

ose o

nly

. When

I in

struct y

ou th

at an item

of ev

iden

ce has b

een ad

mitted

for a lim

ited

purp

ose, y

ou m

ust co

nsid

er it only

for th

at limited

purp

ose an

d fo

r no

oth

er, Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

1.0

4.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 7

(Instru

ctions at E

nd

of Case)

Du

ties of Jury to F

ind

Facts an

d F

ollow th

e Law

T

he C

ourt w

ill now

instru

ct you o

n th

e law g

overn

ing th

is case. You

must arriv

e at your v

erdict b

y u

nan

imous v

ote, ap

ply

ing th

e law, as I n

ow

in

struct y

ou, to

the facts as y

ou fin

d th

em to

be. In

reachin

g y

our v

erdict,

you m

ust n

ot b

e influ

enced

by an

y p

ersonal lik

es or d

islikes, o

pin

ions,

preju

dices o

r sym

path

y. T

hat m

eans y

ou m

ust d

ecide th

e case solely

on th

e ev

iden

ce befo

re you.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

n §

3.0

1

8

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 8

(Instru

ctions A

fter En

d of C

ase) Ju

ry to Con

sider O

nly T

his D

efend

ant,

Not W

heth

er Oth

ers Have C

omm

itted C

rimes

As I ex

plain

ed earlier, th

e defen

dan

t, Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald, is o

n trial

becau

se the G

overn

men

t has ch

arged

that h

e killed

Presid

ent K

enned

y o

n

Novem

ber 2

2, 1

963. T

he o

nly

questio

n y

ou m

ust an

swer is w

heth

er the

Govern

men

t pro

ved

, bey

ond a reaso

nab

le doubt, th

at he co

mm

itted th

is crim

e. It is not u

p to

you to

decid

e wheth

er any o

ther p

erson is g

uilty

of

any crim

e. The q

uestio

n o

f the p

ossib

le guilt o

f oth

ers should

not en

ter your th

inkin

g w

hen

you d

ecide w

heth

er the G

overn

men

t has p

roved

bey

ond reaso

nab

le doubt th

at the d

efendan

t com

mitted

the crim

e charg

ed.

Source:

Pattern

Crim

inal Ju

ry In

structio

ns

(Federal Judicial C

enter 1987), No. 20

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 9

Ch

arge Again

st Defen

dan

t, Presu

mp

tion

of Inn

ocence an

d B

urd

en of P

roof A

s I explain

ed at th

e beg

innin

g o

f the trial, th

e indictm

ent in

this

case accuses th

e defen

dan

t, Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald, o

f killin

g P

residen

t John

F. K

enned

y o

n N

ovem

ber 2

2, 1

963, In

Dallas, T

exas. T

o p

rove th

is charg

e, th

e Govern

men

t must estab

lish each

of th

e follo

win

g elem

ents b

eyond a

reasonab

le doubt:

(1) That th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald sh

ot P

residen

t John F

. K

enned

y o

n N

ovem

ber 2

2, 1

963 in

Dallas, T

exas.

(2) That a sh

ot fired

by th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald cau

sed th

e death

of P

residen

t John F

. Ken

ned

y; an

d

(3) That th

e defen

dan

t Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald acted

delib

erately an

d

with

the in

tent to

kill P

residen

t John F

. Ken

ned

y.

The G

overn

men

t has th

e burd

en o

f pro

vin

g ev

ery elem

ent o

f the

charg

e bey

ond a reaso

nab

le doubt. If it fails to

do so

, you m

ust retu

rn a

verd

ict of n

ot g

uilty

. I rem

ind y

ou th

at the in

dictm

ent is n

ot ev

iden

ce. The d

efendan

t is presu

med

to b

e innocen

t and d

oes n

ot h

ave to

testify o

r presen

t any

evid

ence to

pro

ve in

nocen

ce.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns §

3.0

2.

9

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 10

Reason

able D

oub

t A

rea

son

ab

le d

ou

bt is a

do

ub

t ba

sed

up

on

rea

son

an

d co

mm

on

sen

se,

an

d m

ay a

rise fro

m a

care

ful a

nd

imp

artia

l con

side

ratio

n o

f all th

e e

vide

nce

, or fro

m la

ck of e

vidence

. Pro

of b

eyo

nd a

reaso

nable

doubt is p

roof th

at

lea

ves yo

u firm

ly con

vince

d th

at th

e d

efe

nd

an

t is gu

ilty. If a

fter a

care

ful a

nd im

partia

l consid

era

tion, w

ith yo

ur fe

llow

juro

rs. o

f all th

e e

vide

nce

, you

are

no

t con

vince

d b

eyo

nd

a re

aso

na

ble

do

ub

t tha

t th

e d

efe

ndant is g

uilty, it is yo

ur d

uty to

find th

e d

efe

ndant n

ot g

uilty. O

n

the o

ther h

and, if a

fter ca

refu

l and im

partia

l consid

era

tion w

ith yo

ur fe

llow

ju

rors o

f all th

e e

vide

nce

you

are

con

vince

d b

eyo

nd

a re

aso

na

ble

do

ub

t tha

t th

e d

efe

nd

an

t is gu

ilty, it is you

r du

ty to fin

d th

e d

efe

nd

an

t gu

ilty.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns §

3.0

3

(19

92

ed

.)

(3) (O

the

r stipu

late

d fa

cts]. B

eca

use

the p

artie

s have

agre

ed to

these

facts, yo

u sh

ould

treat

the

se fa

cts as h

avin

g b

ee

n p

rove

d.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

2.0

4

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 13

Stip

ulated

Testim

ony

Th

e p

artie

s ha

ve a

gre

ed

tha

t if w

ere

calle

d a

s a

witn

ess,

's testim

ony w

ould

be:

. Y

ou

sho

uld

con

side

r tha

t testim

on

y in th

e sa

me

w

ay a

s if it had b

een g

iven h

ere

in co

urt.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

2.0

3

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 11

Direct an

d C

ircum

stantial E

viden

ce Y

our ve

rdict m

ust b

e b

ase

d u

pon th

e e

vidence

. Evid

ence

may b

e

dire

ct or circu

msta

ntia

l. Dire

ct evid

ence

is testim

ony b

y a w

itness a

bout

wh

at th

at w

itne

ss pe

rson

ally sa

w o

r he

ard

or d

id. C

ircum

stan

tial e

vide

nce

is in

dire

ct evid

en

ce. In

oth

er w

ord

s, it is pro

of o

f on

e o

r mo

re fa

cts from

w

hich

you

can

find

an

oth

er fa

ct. LA

s an

exa

mp

le o

f circum

stan

tial e

vide

nce

, a

ssum

e th

at yo

u a

re in

a ro

om

with

no

win

do

ws, b

ut tw

o p

eo

ple

wa

lk in

from

outsid

e ca

rrying a

n u

mbre

lla a

nd ra

inco

at, w

hich

are

drip

pin

g w

et.

Alth

ough yo

u ca

nnot lo

ok o

utsid

e to

see fo

r yourse

lf wheth

er o

r not it is

rain

ing

, the

fact th

at tw

o p

eo

ple

wa

lked

into

the

roo

m d

ripp

ing

we

t wo

uld

be circu

msta

ntia

l evid

ence

that it w

as ra

inin

g o

utsid

e.]

Yo

u a

re to

con

side

r bo

th d

irect a

nd

circum

stantia

l evid

en

ce. T

he

law

p

erm

its you

to g

ive e

qu

al w

eig

ht to

bo

th, b

ut it is fo

r you

to d

ecid

e h

ow

m

uch

we

igh

t to g

ive to

an

y evid

en

ce.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

1.0

5

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 12

Stip

ulation

s of Fact

Th

e p

artie

s ha

ve a

gre

ed

to ce

rtain

facts. T

he

se fa

cts are

: (1

) On

No

vem

be

r 22

, 19

63

, Joh

n F

. Ke

nn

ed

y wa

s Pre

side

nt o

f the

U

nite

d S

tate

s; (2

) On N

ove

mber 2

2, 1

963, P

resid

ent Jo

hn F

. Kennedy w

as sh

ot a

nd

killed in

Dalla

s, Texa

s;

10

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 14

Con

sciousn

ess of Gu

ilt from U

sing F

alse Nam

e T

he

Go

vern

me

nt co

nte

nd

s tha

t the

de

fen

da

nt m

ay h

ave

use

d a

false

n

am

e in

pre

pa

ratio

n fo

r the

crime

cha

rge

d. If yo

u fin

d th

at th

e d

efe

nd

an

t kn

ow

ingly u

sed a

nam

e o

ther th

an th

is ow

n in

ord

er to

conce

al h

is identity

an

d to

avo

id id

en

tificatio

n, yo

u m

ay, b

ut a

re n

ot re

qu

ired

to, in

fer th

e

conscio

usn

ess o

f guilt fro

m u

se o

f a fa

lse n

am

e. Y

ou m

ay n

ot, h

ow

eve

r, in

fer o

n th

e b

asis o

f this a

lone th

at th

e d

efe

ndant is, in

fact, g

uilty o

f the

crime ch

arg

ed. T

he sig

nifica

nce

of a

ny e

vidence

with

resp

ect to

the

de

fen

da

nt's u

se o

f a fa

lse n

am

e, if a

ny, is a

ma

tter fo

r you

to d

ete

rmin

e.

Source:

L. S

and, M

od

em F

edera

l Jury In

structio

ns,

No

. 6.1

0.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 15

Gu

ilty Kn

owled

ge from C

land

estine B

ehavior

Willfu

l inte

nt o

r guilty kn

ow

ledge m

ay b

e in

ferre

d fro

m th

e se

cretive

o

r irreg

ula

r ma

rine

r in w

hich

a tra

nsa

ction

is carrie

d o

ut.

Source:

L. S

and, M

odern Federal Jury Instructions,

No. 6-19.

11

MO

TH

EtT

RIA

L-.

W.R

U

FA

TH

LIC

EN

4

!MN ILO

Un

ited

Sta

tes v

. Lee H

arv

ey O

sw

ald

a 11

14 th

`1 ;

• 61

I 111;a

-1-.1 .-

U

D.

JI

Mo

nd

ay

, Au

gu

st 1

0

9:0

0 a

.m.-1

1:4

5 a

.m.

Mo

nd

ay

, Au

gu

st 1

0

2:0

0 p

.m.-6

:00 p

.m.

Tu

esd

ay, A

ug

ust 1

1

2:0

0 p

.m.-S

:00 p

m

Tu

esd

ay, A

ug

ust 1

1

9:0

0 a

.m.-1

1:4

5 a

.m.

PA

RT

I T

he

Po

we

r of F

irst Im

pre

ss

ion

: V

oir D

ire a

nd

Op

en

ing

Arg

um

en

ts

PA

RT

IV

Verd

ict o

f Ju

stic

e: V

erd

ict o

f His

tory

P

AR

T II

j P

AR

T Ill

,.:3.:1

Th

e P

ow

er o

f Evid

en

tiary

Pers

uasio

n:

• Th

e C

ruc

ible

of A

dv

oc

ac

y: C

los

ing

Pre

se

nta

tion

of P

roo

f A

rgu

me

nts

an

d J

ury

Ins

truc

tion

s

Presiding Judge: H

on. Carol C

orrigan A

lameda C

ounty Superior C

ourt

Presid

ing

ind

p: H

on

. Sam

C. P

oin

ter, Jr. U

.S. D

istrict Court for the N

orthern District of A

labama

Clo

sin

g A

rgu

men

ts

Instru

ctio

ns to

the J

ury

Ad

vo

ca

tes

An

aly

sis

Stip

ula

tion

s o

f Fact

Dire

ct a

nd

Cro

ss

-Ex

am

ina

tion

of W

itne

ss

es

Exp

ert T

estim

on

y

. _

An

aly

sis

of E

vid

en

ce

an

d T

es

timo

ny

Jury D

elib

era

tion

on

Clo

sed

Circ

uit

Te

levisio

n w

ith A

na

lysis an

d S

ha

do

w

Jury In

tervie

ws

Jud

ge

s' Ve

rdicts

Jury V

erd

icts

Tria

l Analysis a

nd H

istorica

l Persp

ective

Vo

ir Dire

Ju

ry S

ele

ctio

n

Dis

cu

ss

ion

of V

oir D

ire

Op

en

ing

Arg

um

en

ts

An

aly

sis

of O

pe

nin

g A

rgu

me

nts

Presiding Judge: H

on. Wm

. titanium B

yrne, Jr. C

entre! District of C

alifornia

Pro

po

sed In

structio

n N

o. 1

6

Co

nscio

usn

ess of G

uilt fro

m F

ligh

t T

he G

overn

men

t conten

ds th

at the actio

ns o

f the d

efendan

t after the

killin

g o

f Presid

ent K

enned

y, in

cludin

g h

is leavin

g th

e scene an

d h

is in

volv

emen

t in th

e death

of p

olice o

fficer Tip

pit, sh

ow

con

sciou

sness o

f g

uilt. T

he d

efendan

t, Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald, is n

ot o

n trial in

this case fo

r the

mu

rder o

f Officer T

ipp

it. Ho

wev

er, if yo

u are co

nv

inced

bey

on

d a

reason

able d

ou

bt o

f the facts relatin

g to

the d

efend

ant's in

vo

lvem

ent in

the

death

of O

fficer Tip

pit, su

ch co

nduct m

ay b

e weig

hed

by y

ou in

determ

inin

g w

heth

er the d

efendan

t believ

ed h

e was g

uilty

of th

e killin

g o

f P

residen

t Ken

ned

y.

You are sp

ecifically cau

tioned

that ev

iden

ce of flig

ht o

f a defen

dan

t m

ay n

ot b

e used

by

yo

u as a su

bstitu

te for p

roo

f of g

uilt o

n th

e crime

charg

ed. F

light d

oes n

ot create a p

resum

ptio

n o

f gu

ilt. Flig

ht m

ay n

ot

alway

s reflect feelings o

f guilt. M

oreo

ver, feelin

gs o

f guilt, w

hich

are presen

t in m

any in

nocen

t peo

ple, d

o n

ot n

ecessarily reflect actu

al guilt.

Wh

ether o

r no

t the ev

iden

ce of th

e defen

dan

t's con

du

ct after P

residen

t Ken

ned

y w

as shot d

oes o

r does n

ot sh

ow

that th

e defen

dan

t believ

ed th

at he w

as guilty

is a matter fo

r you to

determ

ine.

Source:

L. S

and, Mo

dern

Fed

eral Ju

ry Instru

ction

s, N

o. 6-9.

Pro

po

sed In

structio

n N

o. 1

7

Op

inio

n E

vid

ence- E

xp

ert Witn

esses Y

ou h

ave h

eard testim

ony fro

m p

ersons d

escribed

as experts.

Perso

ns w

ho

, by

edu

cation

and

exp

erience, h

ave b

ecom

e exp

ert in so

me

field m

ay state th

eir op

inio

n in

matters in

that field

and

may

also state th

eir reaso

ns fo

r the o

pin

ion.

Expert o

pin

ion testim

ony sh

ou

ld b

e judged

just lik

e any

oth

er testim

on

y. Y

ou

may

accept it o

r reject it and

giv

e it as mu

ch w

eigh

t as yo

u

thin

k it d

eserves, co

nsid

ering

the w

itness's ed

ucatio

n an

d ex

perien

ce, the

reason

s giv

en fo

r the o

pin

ion

, and

all the o

ther ev

iden

ce in th

e case. S

ource: N

inth

Circu

it Instru

ctions, §

4.1

6.

[It may

seem stran

ge to

yo

u th

at yo

u are called

up

on

to reso

lve

con

flicts betw

een d

ifferent ex

perts w

ho

disag

ree. Bu

t yo

u m

ust rem

emb

er th

at you are th

e sole trier o

f the facts, an

d th

at the testim

ony o

f the ex

perts

relates to a q

uestio

n o

f fact— th

at is, wh

ether L

ee Harv

ey O

swald

fired th

e sh

ot th

at killed

Presid

ent K

enn

edy

; so, it is y

ou

r job

to reso

lve th

e disag

reemen

t. The w

ay y

ou reso

lve th

e con

flict betw

een ex

perts is th

e sam

e way

yo

u d

ecide o

ther fact q

uestio

ns. Y

ou

may

reject the testim

on

y o

f an

y ex

pert in

wh

ole o

r part, if y

ou

con

clud

e the reaso

ns g

iven

in su

pp

ort o

f

an o

pin

ion are u

nso

und, o

r, if you, fo

r oth

er reasons, d

o n

ot b

elieve th

e ex

pert w

itness. T

he d

etermin

ation o

f the facts in

this case rests so

lely w

ith

you.

Source:

L. S

and, Modern F

edera

l Jury In

structio

ns,

No. 7-23.

Prop

osed In

struction

No. 18

Retu

rn of V

erdict

Each

of y

ou m

ust d

ecide th

e case for y

ourself after d

iscussio

n o

f all th

e evid

ence w

ith y

ou

r fellow

juro

rs. Yo

ur v

erdict, w

heth

er gu

ilty o

r no

t g

uilty

, mu

st be u

nan

imo

us.

After y

ou

hav

e reached

un

anim

ou

s agreem

ent o

n a v

erdict, o

ne o

f y

ou

sho

uld

fill in th

e form

that h

as been

giv

en to

yo

u, an

d retu

rn to

the

court room.

Source:

Nin

th C

ircuit In

structio

ns, §

7.0

1 an

d §

7.0

4

Un

ited S

tates Fed

eral District C

ourt

Un

ited S

tates N

o. P

laintiffs

Defen

dan

t.

We, th

e jury

, find

the d

efendan

t, Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald:

Guilty

Not G

uilty

Dated

:

For °p

erson o

f the Ju

ry

VS

.

Lee H

arvey Osw

ald

14 15

Sp

ecial Interrogatories

1.

Did

Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald act alo

ne?

Yes

No

2.

Were an

y o

ther sh

ots fired

at Presid

ent K

enned

y b

y an

yone

oth

er than

Lee H

arvey

Osw

ald?

Yes

No

3.

Did

any o

f the sh

ots w

hich

hit P

residen

t Ken

ned

y co

me

from

the g

rassy k

noll?

Yes

No

Participants in the T

rial of the Century

CO

OR

DIN

AT

OR

S

Peter 13. F

reeman, E

sq. P

eter Freem

an is a partner at Jenner and B

lock in Chicago, w

here he practices in the area of com

mercial litigation. H

e has been a mem

ber of the council of the S

ection of Litigation of the A

merican B

ar Association and served as program

chair for the section's 1991 A

nnual Fall M

eeting. He contributed to treatises and

other publications on various topics including litigation, antitrust and environm

ental law. A

fter graduating cum laude from

Harvard L

aw S

chool in 1969, he clerked on the U

nited States C

ourt of Appeals for the S

eventh Circuit.

Donald E

. Vinson, P

h.D.

Dr. V

inson is recognized as a national authority in the field of litigation support. H

e has developed and presented executive education seminars to law

firms and

major corporations throughout the U

nited States. H

e is the author and contributor to seven books and m

ore than 40 articles on the role of behavioral and social science research in the litigation arena. D

r. Vinson w

as formerly a

founder and chief executive officer of Litigation S

ciences, Inc. He served as

chairman of the D

epartment of M

arketing, Graduate S

chool of Business

Adm

inistration, University of S

outhern California, and is an associate professor

of marketing at the G

raduate School of M

anagement, U

CL

A. H

e earned his P

h.D. from

the University of C

olorado.

Trial JU

DG

ES

The H

onorable William

Matthew

Byrne, Jr.

The H

onorable Judge Byrne has been a U

nited States district judge in L

os A

ngeles since 1971. He w

as a federal prosecutor, partner in a Los A

ngeles law

firm specializing in civil litigation until he w

as appointed United S

tates Attorney

in Los A

ngeles. He w

as executive director of the President's C

omm

ission on C

ampus U

nrest. Judge Byrne is an adjunct professor at L

oyola Law

School in

Los A

ngeles. He received an L

L.B

. from the U

niversity of Southern C

alifornia, and has been aw

arded Honorary D

octor of Law

degrees from L

oyola M

arymount U

niversity and Urbana C

ollege.

The H

onorable Carol A

. Corrigan

Judge Corrigan w

as appointed to the Alam

eda County S

uperior Court in 1991,

where she currently serves. F

rom 1987 to 1991 she served as Judge in the

Oakland-P

iedmont-E

meryville Judicial D

istrict. She w

as the chairperson for the A

lameda C

ounty Judicial Coordinating C

omm

ittee, from 1989 to 1991, and a

mem

ber of the President's com

mission on O

rganized Crim

e from 1983 to 1986.

Judge Corrigan has been a m

ember of the Judicial C

ounsel Advisory C

omm

ittee on V

oir Dire, since 1988, and w

as elected chairman in 1991. S

he earned a J.D.

from the U

niversity of California H

astings Law

School.

16

17

The H

onorable Sam C

. Pointer, Jr.

Appointed O

ctober, 1970 as U.S. D

istrict Judge for the Northern D

istrict of A

labama-. Judge Pointer has been C

hief Judge since 1982. He is chairm

an of the A

dvisory Com

mittee on C

ivil Rules and has served as a m

ember of the Judicial

Conference of the U

nited States, the S

tanding Com

mittee on R

ules of Practice

and Procedure, the Judicial Ethics C

omm

ittee, the 11th Circuit Judicial C

ouncil and the Judicial P

anel on Multidistrict L

itigation; as a judge of the Tem

porary E

mergency C

ourt of Appeals; and as C

hairman of the B

oard of Editors, M

anual for C

omplex L

itigation Second.

PA

NE

LIST

S

The H

onorable Marvin E

. Aspen

Judge Aspen w

as appointed a United S

tates District Judge for the N

orthern D

istrict of Illinois on July 24, 1979. Prior to this appointment, he served as judge

of the Circuit C

ourt of Cook C

ounty, Illinois. He w

as appointed to that position in Septem

ber of 1971, and on Novem

ber 4, 1974, was elected to a full term

. He

served five years in the Crim

inal Division and three years in the C

ivil Law

-Jury D

ivision. He is a lecturer for the F

ederal Judicial Center's continuing education

programs. Judge A

spen received his J.D. from

Northw

estern University L

aw

School.

Joseph A. B

all, Esq.

Mr. B

all is a partner in Carlsm

ith Ball W

ichman M

urray Case M

ukai & Ichild

specializing in civil and criminal practice in state and federal courts. H

e is a past president of the A

merican C

ollege of Trial L

awyers, the L

ong Beach B

ar A

ssociation, and the State B

ar of California. H

e was a staff counsel to the

Com

mission to Investigate the A

ssassination of President K

ennedy. He has

taught criminal law

and procedure at the University of S

outhern California

School of Law

, been a mem

ber of the faculty at the National Institute for T

rial A

dvocacy in Boulder, and a m

ember of the faculty at L

oyola Law

School. H

e earned an L

L.B

. from the U

niversity of Southern California, and a D

octor of L

aws from

Pepperdine U

niversity.

The H

onorable Terry J. H

atter, Jr. T

he Honorable T

erry J. Hatter, Jr. w

as appointed in 1979 as a United States

District C

ourt Judge for the Central D

istrict of California. H

e served as Superior

Court Judge in L

os Angeles from

1977 to 1980. From 1975 to 1977, he w

as special assistant to the M

ayor of Los A

ngeles, and director of the Office of U

rban D

evelopment. H

e is a mem

ber of the Bars of both C

alifornia and Illinois. Judge H

atter earned his J. D. from

the University of C

hicago Law

School.

The H

onorable Pam

ela Ann R

ymer

The H

onorable Pam

ela Ann R

ymer w

as appointed a United S

tates Circuit C

ourt Judge, C

ourt of Appeals for the N

inth Circuit on M

ay 24, 1989 and was

previously a United States D

istrict Judge for the Central D

istrict of California

from February, 1983 to M

ay, 1989. From 1975 to 1983, Judge R

ymer w

as a partner in the firm

Toy and R

ymer, and of L

illick. McH

ose and Charles prior to

that. Judge Rym

er earned her LL

.B. from

Stanford U

niversity.

The H

onorable Kim

ba M. W

ood Judge W

ood is currently a United States D

istrict Judge in the Southern District of

New

York; appointed in 1988. From

1971 until 1988 she was in private law

practice w

ith the firm L

eBoeuf, L

amb, L

eiby & M

acRae in N

ew Y

ork. She was

the Judicial Representative to the Section of A

ntitrust Law

from 1989-1991.

Judge Wood earned a J.D

. from H

arvard Law

School.

Trial T

eam —

PR

OSE

CU

TIO

N

James J. B

rosnahan, Esq.

Mr. B

rosnahan is a specialist in civil and criminal trial w

ork, and is a partner in the firm

of Morrison &

Foerster. He has tried m

ore than 100 jury cases including patent, libel, m

urder, narcotics, obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and antitrust. M

r. Brosnahan has argued m

any civil and criminal appeals in state and federal

court, including two cases in the U

nited States S

upreme C

ourt. In 1990, Mr.

Brosnahan w

as named by the N

ational Law

Journal as one of the ten best trial law

yers in the country. Mr. B

rosnahan has authored many articles and books on

a variety of legal subjects. He earned his L

LB

. degree from H

arvard Law

School.

Joseph W. C

otchett, Esq.

Mr. C

otchett is a partner in the firm C

otchett, Illston & Pitre, in B

urlingame, and

Los A

ngeles, California. H

e is a former m

ember of the B

oard of Governors of

the California B

ar, Judicial Com

mission, and Judicial C

ouncil. He is a Fellow

of the A

merican C

ollege of Trial L

awyers, the International A

cademy of T

rial L

awyers, the A

merican B

oard of Trial A

dvocates, and the International Society of B

arristers. He has authored several books on trial practice, including F

ederal and C

alifornia Courtroom

Evidence. M

r. Cotchett received his L

LB

. from the

University of C

alifornia, Hastings C

ollege of Law

, and engineering degree from

Cal Poly T

ech.

John W. K

eker, Esq.

Mr. K

eker has been in private practice since 1973 specializing in criminal and

civil trials, with the firm

now know

n as Keker, B

rockett & V

an Nest. In 1989,

Mr. K

eker was the chief prosecutor in "U

nited States v. Oliver N

orth," Mr. K

eker served as president of the S

an Francisco P

olice Com

mission, and vice president

of the San Francisco Fire Com

mission. H

e is a Fellow of the A

merican C

ollege of T

rial Law

yers, the International Academ

y of Trial L

awyers and the A

merican

Bar F

oundation. Mr. K

eker graduated from Y

ale Law

School, and served as law

clerk to R

etired Chief Justice E

arl Warren.

18 19

Trial Team —

DE

FE

NSE

Thom

as D. B

arr, Esq.

Mr. B

arr, is a partner at Cravath, S

waine &

Moore. H

e was a m

ember of the

executive comm

ittee and was national co-chairm

an of the Law

yers' Com

mittee

for Civil R

ights Under L

aw, and a m

ember of the board of directors, S

alzburg S

eminar. M

r. Barr is a F

ellow of the A

merican L

aw Institute, the A

merican

College of T

rial Law

yers, and the International Academ

y of Trial L

awyers. H

e earned his L

LB

. from Y

ale Law

School.

David B

oies, Esq.

Mr. B

oles is a partner in Cravath, Sw

aine & M

oore. He has been chief counsel

and staff director of the United S

tates Senate A

ntitrust Subcom

mittee, and the

Judiciary Com

mittee. H

e has published books and articles concerning corporate litigation, securities and regulation issues. M

r. Boles has taught law

at New

Y

ork University. H

e graduated with his L

L.B

. magna turn laude from

Yale

University.

Evan C

hesler, Esq.

Mr. C

hesler is a partner in the New

York law

firm of C

ravath, Swaine &

Moore,

where he specializes in corporate litigation m

atters such as intellectual property, antitrust, securities and com

mercial transactions. H

e is a cum laude graduate of

New

York U

niversity Law

School, and he is the author of published articles on

antitrust, securities and international law, as w

ell as a textbook on Russian

history.

Expert W

ITN

ESSE

S

Roger L

. McC

arthy, Ph.D., P.E

. D

r. McC

arthy is chairman and chief executive officer of Failure A

nalysis A

ssociates, Inc. He has been w

ith the company since 1978.

Dr. M

cCarthy w

as elected chairman in 1988 and has been president and chief

executive officer since 1982. Dr. M

cCarthy's areas of specialization include:

mechanical design, risk analysis; the quantification of hazards posed by design

and construction of mechanical com

ponents, products or system failure in the

consumer, industrial, and transportation environm

ents. Dr. M

cCarthy holds

three graduate degrees, including a Ph.D

. in mechanical engineering, from

the M

assachusetts Institute of Technology.

Robert L

. Piziali„ Ph.D., P.E

. D

r. Piziali, a principal engineer and vice president of F

ailure Analysis

Associates, Inc. since 1990, is a specialist in the biom

echanics of human injury

and its related fields: accident reconstruction, occupant kinematics and

restraints; recreational and mechanical engineering equipm

ent design and analysis. F

ormerly a professor of m

echanical engineering at Stanford

University, D

r. Piziali was chairm

an of the School of Engineering A

dvisory C

omm

ittee on Engineering in M

edicine and Biology for several years. D

r. Piziali holds three degrees, including a P

h.D. in m

echanical engineering, from the

University of C

alifornia at Berkeley,

Ma

rtin L

. Fackler, M.D

. D

r. Fackler is president of the International Wound B

allistics Association. Since

1982 he has been clinical assistant professor of surgery at the Uniform

ed Services U

niversity of the Health Sciences in B

ethesda, Maryland. D

r. Fackler is technical advisor to the A

ssociation of Firearm and T

oolmark E

xaminers. From

1981 to 1991, he w

as director of the Wound B

allistics Laboratory at L

etterman A

rmy

Institute of Research in San Francisco. D

r. Fackler has authored over 100 publications on w

ound ballistics. He is a graduate of Y

ale University M

edical S

chool.

Technical EX

PE

RT

Ray R

. Dils, P

h.D.

Dr. D

ils, vice president of Spectus Technologies, Inc. and FaA

A Products

Corporation, subsidiaries of T

he Failure Group, joined the com

pany in 1990, and w

as made vice president in 1991. D

r. Dils specializes in the design of

experimental test m

ethods and instrumentation for failure m

onitoring and prevention, and failure analysis of m

aterials, particularly at elevated tem

peratures. Dr. D

ils is a graduate of Stanford U

niversity, where he earned a

Ph.D

. in Materials S

cience He holds several patents, and in 1983, received the

IR-100 A

ward, "O

ne of the 100 Best Inventions of 1983," for an optical fiber

thermom

eter.

fury S

PE

CIA

LIS

T

Philip K

. Anthony, P

h.D.

Dr. A

nthony is president and managing partner of D

ecisionQuest, Inc., a L

os A

ngeles-based firm w

hich specializes in the application of behavioral science techniques to trial settings. D

r. Anthony's particular areas of expertise include

overall trial strategy, demonstrative exhibit preparation, effect of instructions,

stipulations, and Voir D

ire analysis of plaintiff and defense oriented jurors. He

has been active in trial consulting for the past 15 years, and has worked on

thousands of cases throughout the nation. Dr. A

nthony earned his Ph.D

. from

the University of Southern C

alifornia, with interdisciplinary degrees in social

psychology, comm

unication science and business.

20 21

eicKn

uw

iecigm

ents

James. E

. Boesberg, E

sq., Keker, B

rockett & V

an Nest, S

an Francisco

David M

. Brodsky, E

sq., Schulte, R

oth & Z

abel, New

York

WilH

ain F. C

ausey, Esq., F

alk & C

ausey, Washington, D

.C.

Margery B

. Feinzig, E

sq., Cravath, S

waine &

Moore, N

ew Y

ork Jam

i Floyd, E

sq., Morrison &

Foerster, S

an Francisco

Andrew

W. H

ayes, Esq., C

ravath, Sw

athe & M

oore, New

York

Adam

Keker, E

sq., Keker, B

rockett & V

an Nest, S

an Francisco

Sam

uel R. M

iller, Esq., M

orrison & F

oerster, San F

rancisco M

ichael Stiegel, E

sq., Arnstein &

Lehr, C

hicago R

onald J. Waicukauski, E

sq., Indianapolis

Andrew

Henry, S

pectus Technologies, Inc.

Jeff Lotz, P

h.D., F

ailure Analysis A

ssociates, Inc. A

ngela A. M

eyer, Ph.D

., Failure A

nalysis Associates, Inc.

Spectus T

echnologies, Inc. A

nimators

Graphics

Photographic Im

age and Research L

aboratory (PIR

L)

Failure A

nalysis Associates, Inc.

Biom

echanics Group

Alan S

. Tetelm

an Mem

orial Library

Research S

taff

Larry B

. How

ard, founder, president and director of the JFK

Assassination

Information C

enter, Dallas, T

exas and the JFK

Assassination E

xhibit, Niagara

Falls, O

ntario, Canada.

Jim M

arrs, author of Crossfire, the P

lot that Killed K

ennedy.

NO

TE

S

22