Another interesting Jury instruction
You may consider only the evidence admitted in the case. The evidence consists of
the sworn testimony of witnesses, exhibits admitted into evidence, and facts stipulated to by
the parties.
Statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. They are intended only to
help you to understand the evidence. Similarly, the questions of the lawyers are not evidence.
If anyone describes the evidence you have heard differently from the way you
remember it, it is your memory that should control during your deliberations.
You must rely on your own recollection of the testimony and on any notes you may
have taken during the trial.
There are two types of evidence which you may properly use in reaching your verdict.
One type of evidence is direct evidence. Direct evidence is when a witness testifies
about something they know by virtue of their own senses-something they have seen, felt,
touched, or heard. Direct evidence may also be in the form of an exhibit where the fact to be
proved is its present existence or condition.
The other type of evidence is circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is
evidence which tends to prove a disputed fact by proof of other facts. There is a simple
example of circumstantial evidence which is often used in this courthouse.
2
Case 1:13-cv-01053-RCL Document 240 Filed 11/01/22 Page 2 of 11
Assume that when you came into the courthouse this morning the sun was shining and
it was a nice day. Assume that the courtroom blinds were drawn and you could not look
outside. As you were sitting here, someone walked in with an umbrella which was dripping
wet. Then a few minutes later another person also entered with a wet umbrella. Now, you
cannot look outside of the courtroom and you cannot see whether or not it is raining. So you
have no direct evidence of that fact. But on the combination of facts which I have asked you
to assume, it would be reasonable and logical for you to conclude that it had been raining.
That is all there is to circumstantial evidence. You infer on the basis of reason and
experience and common sense from one established fact the existence or non-existence of
some other fact.
Circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence; for, it is a general
rule that the law makes no distinction in the weight to be given to either direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence. You are to decide how much weight to give any evidence.
The party who makes a claim has the burden of proving it. This burden of proof
means that the plaintiffs must prove every element of their claim by a preponderance of the
evidence.
To establish an element by a preponderance of the evidence, the party must show
evidence that produces in your mind the belief that the thing in question is more likely true
than not true. The party need not prove any element beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard
of proof in criminal cases, or to an absolute or mathematical ce1iainty.
If you believe that the evidence is more likely true on an issue the plaintiffs had to
prove, then your finding on that issue must be for the plaintiffs. If you believe that the
evidence is evenly balanced on an issue the plaintiffs had to prove, then your finding on that
issue must be for the defendants.
Havoc5
AI
