who's life was better without caylee? was cindy anthony's life better? >> 911, what is your emergency? >> i called a little bit ago and talked to the deputy, and i found out that my grand daughter is missing. she has been missing for a month. i need someone here now. >> where are you calling from? >> hopespring drive. we are -- >> 4937 what? >> hopespring drive. oh, my god, finally admitted

that the babys-sitter didn't steal her. >> your daughter what? >> i told you my daughter has been missing for a month, and i found her today and i can't find my grand daughter, and she has been admitting to me that she tried to find her herself, something is wrong. i found my daughter's car today, and it smells like there has been a dead body in the damn car. >> what is the 3-year-old's name? was george anthony's life better? mr. ashton went over what george anthony's life was like as a result of losing his beloved granddaughter. whose life was better?

in considering why caylee marie anthony was left on the side of the road dead. linda drane-burdick and that is the last that the jurors will hear from the prosecution, wrapping up their rebuttal case, and now we will go for the charge here. obviously, focusing on who had the motive to kill little caylee anthony. let's listen, and he is calling for a short recess. this is the judge. >> we will have a brief recess and when you return, you will

hear the final instructions on the law from the court. we will be in recess. >> all rise for the jury. we have jonathan spillborg and meg strickler and let's talk about the decision to do almost two hours total of rebuttal this morning, and you were with me all day yesterday jonah, and you and your panel predicted something short and emotional and to the point, and it was not brief. what did you any? >> well, i think that the prosecution did something that they weren't able to pull off in the trial. they had to rebut this accident theory, and they did a really good job of doing that on closing argument. don't know how appropriate it was, but i think that it is going to be effective, because that is the crux, and the accident is the crux of the defense case, and they undermined it today. >> susan, a tacit admission that the defense had made some strides in suggesting that

george anthony and casey anthony were in fact covering up an accidental drowning. >> i think they had to rebut what the defense put forward, but the drane-burdick statement was brilliant. >> let's listen in, because jose baez is asking for a mistrial which is something that typically happens. >> and asking for the explanation of where the chloroform came from and the second comment is on ms. drane-burdick's statement where she was, she had stated that the defendant had changed her story once the remains were found. this gives in this -- this is an improper comment and improper argument based on statements that were never made by ms. anthony. ms. anthony did not testify, and

to make false statements as such, would be improper argument and for those reasons we move for a mistrial. >> motion for mistrial will be denied. [ inaudible ]. >> mr. mason, turn your speaker on, please, sir. >> verdict form, complete package is missing the two special finding ones, and do you the last one, frank? >> mr. mason, you may want to

also inspect the verdict formsly be reading to the jury and make sure those are the same ones that we discussed yesterday. >> your honor -- >> i will need them back. but please inspect them. while you are reviewing those, the rules of criminal procedure provides that a certain instructions that i need to give the alternate jurors, because of the nature of this particular case. the instructions specifically provide that they are to remain in the courtroom and that i am to give them instructions. generally that's what i generally do. this case is somewhat unusual. in the sense of media and public interest.

what i have done in the past is that i will do that, and they will go out of the front door and then they will go about their business. this particular case they cannot do this. this is what i propose to do. i have made arrangements with the court deputies that i will excuse those individuals, but they will go through the same door with the rest of the jurors, but they will be promptly taken down to a location in this building. they will be held there, and i will go with the court reporter. if the you or the state want one representative present, you can, and then i will instruct them, but they will be sequestered until there will be a verdict in this particular case.

but there are some special instructions that i'm going to need to give them particularly in light of the fact of bookers who have arrived in town trying to book jurors for shows. any objections from the state of florida? >> no, your honor. >> any objections from the defense? >> no, your honor. none from the defense.

>> okay. okay. to the audience, when i return back in, in the next ten minutes, i will give the jury the final instructions and no one will be permitted to leave. so if you want to leave, my suggestion is that you leave now, because you will not be permitted to leave, get up, walk around, do anything. the court deputies have been instructed that if someone does that, they will deal with you accordingly. so, if you want to leave, now is the time to leave and not return. okay. we will be in recess for ten minutes. so a little bit of housekeeping on the part of the judge, but i want to go back to susan and talk about the

prosecution's strategy, because it is always in the case, they get the last word and they get to leave the jury with the final thought, and how about how they left this case with the jury? >> i thought it was absolutely brilliant. it had in everything. it was powerful and emotional and had the logic and had the commonsense. i think that linda drane-burdick pulled it all together for the jury. so rather than going down the rabbit hole as jeff ashton referred to yesterday, they can look back and look at the big picture and not get lost in the trees of the forest and see this case for what it really is. i think that she pretty much dispelled and shutdown all of what seem to be cockamamie theories, and i thought she was powerful and masterful sglcht and in your experience of a case like this, there is so much csi-kind of evidence, but the obvious gaping hole in the prosecution's case which is that they have no cause of death which allowed this opening for the idea that there could have

been an accidental drowning, how does a jury weigh that? how do they weigh this expert testimony which is often contradictory with commonsense with the emotion? >> well, i think it is going to be very difficult for the jury to weigh all of the evidence in this case. however, what linda did say which is one of the most important things of this case is to look at the totality of the evidence. the big picture here. what does all of this evidence altogether suggest? and that is really what the jury is going to have to look at and think about when they deliberate. >> i think that one of the things that they have tried to get to throughout the whole case is just this concept of casey anthony wanting to have her freedom. and she hit on that again. who had the motive essentially at the end. was it the grandparents who had built in the backyard this beautiful little playhouse for her, or was it casey anthony who

we have seen the pictures of her out partying and getting the tattoo, and yet the contradiction that we see shg, jonna, which is that no one said that she didn't love her child. >> and linda drane-burdick brought that up, where did you get that information from? you got it from people who were her friends and people who have their own lives and good on linda's part where she sort of juxtaposed a lot of that, and if you can't -- her theme was that casey anthony is the biggest liar that has ever walked the face of the planet, so you can't even believe that she was a good mother, because she was such a huge liar and even her friends, because those are the only people who could vouch for her being a good mother, and she wove that theme throughout the closing argument.

>> and so, did linda drain byrdak bring it together? >> well, she impressed me big time. both of the prosecutors have done a good job throughout the trial, and ashton was amazing and not that good this morning, but linda drane-burdick brought it home and i'm not worried about a first-degree verdict here, because this is the last thing that the jury listens to in delivery and she hears casey saying the f-bomb to her mother repeatedly and that emotion shows what casey really is in the jury's mind perhaps. i don't know, but i hope they can balance it and listen to everything, but linda drane-burdick did a fabulous, fabulous job. i would have wished when she did the call said a few more things and ended it there, it would have had more of a high note, and you have to know when to fold them, and that is a tiny

minor thing to say, but bravo to linda. >> when we left the coverage yesterday the lawyers were going to go in to have a final conference with the judge about what is going to be said, and susan, how important is the charge that the judge is going to say, and how seriously do the jurors listen to this and take it to heart? >> the charge is extremely, extremely important. it is like getting into the car and thinking that you know how the drive it and then having the instruction manual that tells you all of the things that you don't know, and it is important. the jurors will listen to them. and the judge is going to let them take the instructions into the jury room, and each juror, and they will have the rules of the road and apply it to the car as you drive it and that is how they will deliberate, because they have gotten everything they need from the lawyers at this point. a rehash of the evidence, and gotten their each theories on what the evidence means, but now they need the instructions as to the law about how to take what they have heard in this

courtroom and deliberate and reach their verdict. i think that it is more likely now than i thought before for a first-degree murder conviction, because after listening to linda drane-burdick and you stand back and look at it, what else could it be? so even with the holes in the case, no cause of death, it seems that you can infer now from all of the circumstantial evidence what that cause of death was and who caused that death, and when you got those two pieces, it is first-degree murder and as jeff ashton says, no matter how you slice it. >> let's talk more when we come back about what the charges are and the possibilities and what we are likely to hear from the judge, but he is in what he says is a 10-minute recess, and then we will come back to hear the charge from him, and the subject of a number of conferences with lawyers trying to decide the exact wording of what he would tell the jury about what has to be proved in order the come to a guilty verdict on these counts. we will take a quick break and be back with more of the coverage of the casey anthony

murder trial after this. and it always points true north. toward mountains of sand. toward new sights and sensations. toward the true bounty of nature so let's set our compass for traverse city and find ourselves. in the magic, and the moments of pure michigan. your trip begins at michigan.org.

the question is no longer what happened to caylee marie

anthony. we know. we know what happened to caylee. the question is who killed caylee. prosecutors in the rebuttal this morning arguing it is absurd to consider that 2-year-old caylee anthony was killed by an accident and trying to totally put to rest the defense claim that there had been an accidental drowning with a cover-up and you have heard linda drane-burdick for about an hour, but perhaps the most powerful words came not from her, but by replaying some of those jailhouse phone calls of casey anthony, herself, and jonna, obviously, she is trying to say, this is a mother who could have done this. >> yeah. listen to be how cold, how nasty, and how bratty she comes across in the jailhouse tapes. you can't, when you see the picture of casey playing with her daughter and then you look at a her and listen to her words on those tapes, it is two

totally different people. one seems evil, and the other one seems like a loving mother, and the jurors are going to be very confused what to do with that. >> and jose baez yesterday talked for a long time yesterday, susan, that casey anthony is a liar, and she comes from a family of lier y liars, learned from her parents to lie, and her brother to lie. this is a family where deception and hiding are normal points of view, but that does not make her a murderer. do you think that this sort of discounted now what seemed at the time to be a pretty good strategy by jose baez? >> yes, i killed that strategy, because linda drane-burdick explained the lies. she said, yes, there are many shades of grief, but there is only one shade of guilty, and what do guilty people do? they lie. so, she no longer looked like the general casey family liar,

but looked like a specific brand of lier yar, a guilty person trying to cover-up a heinous crime. and then when you hear in her own words on the jailhouse video how she is again trying to lie to her parents saying, look in the database, check new york, and then they cut to her in the courtroom shaking her head with this angry pout. she looked exactly like who she is right there in that courtroom in front off that jury, and linda drane-burdick said why she lies, because she is guilty of murder and she does not want to get caught, and moreover, she does not want the bodice coverecover -- body discovered because she wants freedom for another day. >> we will hear the charges of the judge, one is first-degree murder and another is aggravated manslaughter, and what is the difference? >> well, in first degree murder

you have to have premeditation, and if a felony is committed and someone dies in the commission of that felony which in this case would be aggravated child abuse, they can convict her on first-degree murder. aggravated manslaughter is a lesser charge obviously, and that is where a death occurs in the commission of an accident, but it was not premeditated. >> so what do you think is going to be the key point for these jurors, susan, as they are looking -- if they have decided that casey anthony killed her daughter, and if they have gone, there they have to decide whether she meant to do it, whether it was premeditated and what are the key points for the prosecution on that? >> well, there is no other conclusion to come to now, because the prosecution said, even if she did not mean to, it was an accident of an overdose of chloroform, that's aggravated child abuse, and that is first-degree murder, so you can get to first-degree murder one

of two routes, the premeditated or the aggravated child abuse, and either one will get you the first degree and now clearly in my view now, they have convinced me of either one of these or both, and the prosecution said, you can do one or the other or both. so whether she meant to chloroform her to kill her or chloroform her to silence her, and then duct tape her mouth, and then the way that the child was disposed. if it was an accident as the prosecution told you, oh, my gosh, i meant to put her to sleep, and i didn't mean to kill her, then you call 911. the coroner said that in 100% of the accidental cases, and cases that start off where you do something awful like benadryl a kid and it is an overdose of benadryl, you try to revive and resuscitate and save that child's life and you don't put her in a trunk and put her in the bag and put her in a swamp and leave her to the point where finally in december the corpse is so decomposed that you can't tell a cause of death and try to benefit from that and have the

child's remains dragged by animals. >> but there is still one question lingering for the jury, and even though linda drane-burdick did a good job of the question should not be how she died, but the question is who killed her, and she did good job in pointing the jurors in that direction, but it remains how did this little girl die? if i o'm on the jury, i am stil not sure. >> but it is aggravated child abuse. >> do they have the buy the chloroform theory? >> no, bypass the chloroform, but the duct tape. but when you see the duct tape wrapped around the eyes and the nose and she didn't poconos hk in it. >> and we will go with the defense and the state's attorney, and are both sides ready fproceed? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> let's return the jury.

the jury walks back in, briefly, susan, explain to them what a charge is. >> a charge is the instructions as to the law. the judge is going to explain what the burden of proof is. the counsel's arguments are not instructions by the court. they have to take the court's instructions, so that the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and the elements of first-degree murder and the elements of aggravated child abuse and it is going to be what do you need to know to decide this case. this is the rulef of the road. it is the law. >> yeah, it is confusing to a lot of people and i have been asked this before, and i'm sure you have, too, jonna, why not a standard form, and why does it change from case to case and why these conferences with the lawyers? >> well, depending upon the facts and depending upon the actual charges against casey anthony. the jurors have to get specifically instructed as to each and every one, and each and every element as susan pointed out. very technical and very dry i might add, but very necessary. >> and yet, do you find that

jurors pay close attention to them? >> i think they do. they know that they have a very important task at hand and they follow the court's rules and what is told to them, and that is very important to them. >> and they are relieved now to hear from the judge. nay don't have to decide who to believe or who they like, and now it is finally the judge, and the one safe person they can trust in the courtroom. >> so let's listen to the judge bell v bellvin perry give the instructions of the trial. please pay attention to what i am about to tell you and you will also receive a copy of the instructions in writing n. this case, casey anthony is accused of murder in the first degree, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer. murder in the first degree

includes the lesser crimes of murder in the second degree, manslaughter and third degree felony murder all of which are unlawful. a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. if you find caylee marie anthony was killed by casey marie anthony, then you will consid s and deciding if the killing is murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree or manslaughter or third degree felony murder or whether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force. the killing of a human being is

justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual, ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or, two,

when the killing occurs by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion without any sudden or sufficient provocation, or, three, when the killing is committed by accident and the misfortune resulting from a sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. i now instruct you on the circumstances that must be proved before casey marie anthony may be found guilty of murder in the first degree, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer or any lesser included crime. murder in the first degree. there are two ways in which a person may be convicted of

first-degree murder. oneb is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. in order to find a defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the state must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder. while you must all agree that the state has proven first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based upon premeditated murder or felony murder as i shall now define those terms. to prove the crime of first degree premeditated murder, the state mustt prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

one, caylee marie anthony is dead. two, the death was caused by the criminal act of ka -- casey marie anthony, and there was a premeditated killing of caylee marie anthony. an act includes an act of related actions that result in the designed purpose. killing with premeditation is killi ining of consciously deci to do so. the decision must be present in the mind of tat the time of the killing. the law does not fix an exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the

premeditated attempt 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. the question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. it would 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 the premeditation at the time of the killing. first degree felony murder. to prove the crime of first degree felony murder the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

one, caylee marie anthony is dead. two, the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was engaged in the commission of aggravated child abuse, or the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was attempting to commit aggravated child abuse. three, casey marie anthony was the person who actually killed caylee marie anthony. in order to convict of first-degree felony murder, it is not necessary for the state so prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill. to prove the crime of aggravated child abuse, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

one, casey marie anthony knowingly and willfully committed child abuse upon caylee marie anthony and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement. two, caylee marie anthony was under the age of 18 years. willfully means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. child abuse means the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child or an intentional act that could be reasonably expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child or active encourage of any person to commit an act that results or could be reasonably expected to

result in physical or mental injury to a child. aggravated manslaughter of a child. to prove the crime of aggravated manslaughter of a child, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, casey marie -- caylee marie anthony is dead. two, casey marie anthony's acts or act caused the death of caylee marie anthony or the death of caylee marie anthony was caused by the culpable

negligence of casey marie anthony. i will now define culpable negligence for you. each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others. if there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intent to harm, that violation is negligence. but culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care towards others. in order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety of a person is exposed to its dangerous effects or such an entire want of care as to riaise a presumption of conscious indifference to the

conscious results or showing a wantonness or recklessness or grossly recklessness of the safe regard of the public. or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. the negligent act or omission must have been committed with other disregard for the safety of others. culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death of great bodily harm. if you find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter of a child, you must then determine whether the state has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt

that caylee marie anthony was a child whose death was caused by the negligent of casey marie anthony, a care giver. child means any person under the age of 18 years. care giver means a parent, adult household member or other person responsible for a child's welfare. negligent of a child means a care giver's failure or omission to provide a child with care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child's physical and mental health including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine and medical services that a prudent person would consider

essential for the well-being of the child. repeatedly conduct or a single incident or omission by a care giver that results in or could reasonably be expected to e tet in the risk of a death to a child may be considered in determining negligent. false information to a law enforcement officer. to prove the crime of false information to a law enforcement officer, the state must prove the following five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, yuri melich was conducting a missing person's investigation. two, yuri melich was a law enforcement officer.

three, casey marie anthony knew that yuri melich was a law enforcement officer. four, ka si marie anthony knowingly and willingly gave false information to yuri melich. five, casey marie anthony intended to mislead yuri melich or impede the investigation. willfully means intentionally, knowingly, and purposely. in considering the evidence, you should consider the possibility that even though the evidence may not commit you that the defendant committed the main crimes for which she is accused, there may be evidence that she committed other acts that would constitute a lesser included crime. therefore, if you decide that

the main accusation has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you will next need to decide if the defendant is guilty of any lesser included crime. the lesser crimes s indicated the first-degree murder are second-degree murder, manslaughter or third-degree murder. the lesser crime indicated in the definition of aggravated child abuse is child abuse. second-degree murder. to prof the crime of second-degree murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, caylee marie anthony is dead. two, the death was caused by the criminal act of casey marie anthony. three, there was an unlawful killing of caylee marie anthony

by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. an act includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose. an act is imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind if it is an act or series of acts that, one, a person of ordinary judgment should know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and two, is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent and, three, is of such a nature that the act, itself, indicates an indifference to human life.

in order to convict of the crime of second-degree murder, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death. manslaughter. to prove the crime of manslaughter, the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, caylee marie anthony is dead. two, casey marie anthony's act or acts caused the death of caylee marie anthony or the death of caylee marie anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of casey marie anthony, however, the defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter if the killing was either justifiable or excusable

homicide. the killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while attempting, resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. the killing of a human being is excusable and therefore lawful under any one of the following three circumstances. one, when the killing is committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or, two, when the killing occurred by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion upon any sudden and sufficient provocation or, three, when the killing is committed by accident or

misfortune resulting from sudden combat if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel and unusual manner. in order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the state to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death only an intent to commit an act that was not justified or excusable or which caused death. i will now define culpable negligence for you. each of us has a duty to act reasonably towards others. if there is a violation of that duty without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence, but culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care towards others. in order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and

flagrant, and culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or of the safety a person has exposed to the dangerous effects or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of the conscious indifference to the consequences or which shows wantonness or recklessness or a gross careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public. or such an indifference to the rights of others as equivalent to the intentional violation of such rights. the negligent act or omission must have been committed with other disregard or the the safety of others. culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death

or great bodily injury. to prove the crime of third-degree felony murder, the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. caylee marie anthony is dead. two, the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was engaged in the commission of child abuse, or the death occurred as a consequence of and while casey marie anthony was attempting to commit child abuse. three, casey marie anthony is the person who actually killed caylee marie anthony. it is not necessary for the state to prove the killing was perpetrated with a design to effect death. child abuse means the intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a

child or an emotional or an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child when the person knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability or permanent disfigurement to a child. willfully means intentionally, knowingly and purposely. in order to prove that the defendant attempted to commit the crime of child abuse, the state must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt. one, casey marie anthony did some act towards committing the crime of child abuse that went beyond just thinking or talking about it. two, she would have committed the crime except that someone prevented her from committing the crime of child abuse or she failed. it is not an attempt to commit

child abuse if the defendant abandoned her attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented the commission and the circumstances indicating a voluntary renunciation of her criminal purpose. to prove the crime of child abuse the state must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt. one, casey marie anthony intentionally inflicted physical or mental injury upon caylee marie anthony, or committed an intentional act that could be reasonably expected to result in physical or mental injury to caylee marie anthony. two, the victim was under the age of 18 years.

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. to overcome the defendant's presumption of innocent, 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 to prove anything. whenever the words reasonable

doubt are used you must consider the following, 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 waivers 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. it is to the evidence introduced

in this trial into it alone that you are to look for that proof. a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence conflict in evidence or lack of evidence. if you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. if you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty. it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. 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. you may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than other evidence. you should consider how the witnesses acted as well as what

they said. 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. did the witness seem to have an accurate memory? was the witness honest and straight forward in answering the attorneys' questions? did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided? does the witness' testimony agree with other testimony and other evidence in the case? has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatmenter 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 witnesses testimony.

did the witness at some other time make a state that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court? you may rely upon your own conclusions about the witness. a juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness. when evidence concerning k-9 searches it is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. 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. you may find some of the evidence not reliable or less reliable than others. some things you should consider in evaluating k-9 searches are,

one, the k-9's training and certificate records, certification records including an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification. two, the field performance records including any unverified alerts. three, experience in training of the officer handling the k-9 as well as any other objective evidence known to the officer about the k-9's reliability. you may rely upon your own conclusions about this type of evidence. a juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony. expert witnesses are like other witnesses with once exception. the law permits an expert witness to give his or her

opinion. however, an expert's opinion is only reliable when given on a subject about which you believe he or she to be an expert. like other witnesses, you may believe or disbelieve all or any part of an expert's testimony. the constitution requires the state to prove its accusations against the defendant. it is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. nor is the defendant required o to -- 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 baby 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. statements claimed to have been made by the defendant outside of court have been placed before you. such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. therefore you must determine from the evidence that the defendant's alleged statements were knowingly, voluntarily and freely made. in making this determination you should consider the total circumstances including but not limited to one, whether when the defendant made the statement she was threatened in order to get her to make it.

and two, whether anyone had promised her anything in an order to get her to make it. if you conclude that the defendant's out of court statements -- statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it. these are some general rules that apply to your discussions. you must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict. you must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. if you fail to follow the law your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. there is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. all of us are dependent upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter. this case must not be decided -- this case must be decided only upon the evidence that you had

heard from the testimony of witnesses and have seen in the forms of exhibits in evidence in these instructions. this case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone or angry to anyone. remember, lawyers are not on trial. your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case. your duty is to determine if the defendant has been proven guilty or not in a court with the law. whatever verdict you render must be unanimous. that is each juror must agree to the same verdict. it is entirely proper for a lawyer to talk to a witness about what testimony to give if called to the courtroom. the witness should not be discredited by talking