Jury Instructions

While I was representing my own interests in court (by acting as my own attorney, per se) during my "death penalty" trial, the team of prosecutors who I was supposed to be defending myself against would sometimes come over to my side of the court room during the "recess" (in Federal court, Idaho) so they could make a show of discussing certain technical procedures that must normally be agreed upon by the attorneys on both sides (and then signed off by the judge). During these so-called "discussions" I would usually just sit quietly and let them tell me when I should agree, or say something. I had no real interest in the "game" they were playing with my life.

One of the procedures that had to be agreed upon was called the "Jury instructions". This was a document (that the prosecutor drafted in my case) that provides detailed questions that the jury must answer specific to the case in order to determine their verdict. The intent is to provide clear instructions to the jury on what they must determine in order to make their decision in accordance with the law. For example, they must ask (and answer) questions like, "Did the defendant act with malicious intent?" Or, "Did the prosecution establish a clear motive?" etc. etc...

Well, one day the prosecutors came over to my table during recess and told me that the jury had requested that a particular part of their "instructions" be clarified, as they were having trouble understanding how to apply it in their decision. The part in question concerned "mitigating circumstances". In layman's terms (i.e. as I understand it) the law requires that the jury must "weigh" the "aggravating" factors of the crime against the "mitigating" factors. So the "jury instructions" had a section that tried to explain to the jury specifically how they must make a list of all the aggravating facts, then weigh it against a list of all the mitigating facts. It was this part that the jury had asked for "clarification" on. They wanted to know how they were supposed to determine the "weight" of the various facts and factors.

So the prosecutors came to my table, explained the jury's question, and then, as I sat quietly and listened, began discussing revisions to the instructions that would provide the jury with clear instructions on how to make a list of all the aggravating and mitigating factors and then assign "weights" according to things like victim impact, future threat, and callous intent, etc. etc...

As I sat and listened I could not help but remember how the prosecutors made a big deal in their closing arguments during the "guilt" phase of the trial, about a spreadsheet they found on my laptop computer which I had made to help me decide whether or not I should "lash out" against society while I still had the chance, or if I should stay and face the "molestation" charges against me and risk going to prison for the rest of my life because I touched a boy's penis in Minnesota. This spreadsheet very explicitly listed all the pros and cons I could think of concerning the decision I had to make, i.e. "kill or not kill". I literally assigned numeric values to each item in the spreadsheet, positive numbers for reasons I should "run" (and get revenge by raping and killing as many children as I could). The prosecutors said that this spreadsheet proved that I callously deliberated my crimes, and knew exactly what I was doing.

So, I decided the circumstance, of the prosecutors literally discussing how the jury must now be instructed on how to "objectively" (i.e. callously) deliberate my demise, was much too surreal for me to just sit there and say nothing. I wanted to just burst out laughing, but knew "they" would never understand. So I decided to show them the humor and the hypocritical irony all at the same time.

I excused myself into the conversation, and they all stopped talking to hear what I had to say because it was so unusual for me to say anything. My own "stand by" counsel (attorneys who sat with me at the defense table and provided advice and expertise when I asked for it) were listening too as I said, "You know, I might be able to help. I could make a spreadsheet that the jury could use to decide..."

My own attorney, Judy Clarke, laughed first (she understood my sense of humor), and that let the prosecutors know I was making a joke, so they laughed too, when Judy did. But their laughs had barely come out before they became abruptly stifled as the prosecutors realized that the "joke" was on them. There was a moment of awkward silence (awkward for them, not me; I just smiled at my own joke and their reaction), and then some hem-hawing and polite smiles as no one was sure anymore if they should laugh or cringe at the irony.

They resumed their discussion once more, without me of course, and the "jury instructions" were determined with no further input from me. I had had my say, and made my point; by judging and condemning the way I chose to kill, they were only judging and condemning themselves.

[J.D. April 2018]