pec tut assoc ai lwtsis es
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