2.Preliminary Jury Instructions and Offense Elements

THE COURT: All right. Before the trial begins, there are certain instructions you should better have to understand your functions as a juror and how you should conduct yourself during the trial. Your duty is to decide the case based only on the evidence presented and the law given to you by the Court. Do not let any personal feelings of bias or prejudice against any such things as race, religion, national origin, sex or age affect your deliberations.

Do not begin your deliberations and discussion of the case until all the evidence is presented and I have instructed you on the law. Do not discuss this case among yourselves or with anyone else until your final deliberations in the jury room.

We will stop or recess from time to time during the trial. You may be excused from the courtroom when it is necessary for me to hear legal arguments from the lawyers. If you come in contact with the parties, lawyers, or witnesses, do not speak with them. For their part, the parties, lawyers, and witnesses will not contact or speak with the jurors.

Should you be exposed to any reports or communications from any source concerning the case during the trial, you should report that information to the jury bailiff. The Court is aware that many of you've been exposed to publicity concerning this case before you were selected to serve as a juror. Each of you has committed to base your verdict only on the evidence introduced during the trial. It is of vital importance to the parties and the sanctity of the court process that you remain true to this commitment.

Anything you may see or hear outside the courtroom is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence offered and received at trial.

Evidence is, first, the sworn testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness.

Second, the exhibits the Court has received.

And, third, any facts to which the lawyers have agreed, or stipulated, or which the Court has directed you to find.

Attorneys for each site -- side have the right and the duty to object to what they consider are improper questions asked of witnesses and to the admission of other evidence which they believe is not properly admissible.

You should not draw any conclusions from the fact that an objection was made. By allowing testimony or other evidence to be received over the objection of counsel, the Court is not indicating any opinion about the evidence. You jurors are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.

You are not required to, but you may take notes during the trial except during the opening statements and closing arguments. The Court will provide you with materials. In taking notes, you must be careful that it does not distract you from carefully listening to and observing the witnesses.

You may rely on your notes to refresh your memory during deliberations. Otherwise, keep them confidential. Your notes will be collected by the jury bailiff after each day's session and kept in a secure place until the next day of trial. After the trial, the notes will be collected and destroyed.

You will not have a copy of the written transcript of the trial testimony available for use during your deliberations. You may ask to have specific portions of the testimony read to you. You should pay careful attention to all the testimony, because you must rely primarily on your memory of the evidence and testimony introduced during the trial.

To assist you in evaluating the evidence, I will now read to you portions of the specific jury instructions for the offenses with which the defendant is charged. I will read them to you in their entirety at the close of the evidence.

Count 1. Count 1 of the Information charges the defendant with first degree intentional homicide, as party to a crime -- to the crime. Section 939.05 of the Wisconsin Criminal Code provide that whoever's concerned in the commission of a crime is a party to that crime and may be convicted of that crime although that person did not directly commit it.

The State contends that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime of first degree intentional homicide by either directly committing it or by intentionally aiding and abetting the person who directly committed it. If a person intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime, then that person is guilty of the crime as well as the person who directly committed it. A person intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime when acting with knowledge or belief that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime, he knowingly either assists the person who commits the crime, or is ready and willing to assist, and the person who commits the crime knows of the willingness to assist.

To intentionally aid and abet the crime of first degree intentional homicide, the defendant must know that another person is committing or intends to commit the crime of first degree intentional homicide and have the person -- and have the purpose to assist the commission of that crime.

Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide as a party to the crime, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant directly committed the crime of first degree intentional homicide or intentionally aided and abetted the commission of that crime.

All 12 jurors do not have to agree on whether the defendant directly committed the crime of first degree intentional homicide or aided and abetted the commission of the crime. However, each juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime in one of those ways.

First degree intentional homicide, as defined in 940.01 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who causes the death of another human being with the -- the intent to kill that person or another.

Before you may find the person -- the defendant guilty of first degree intentional homicide, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following two elements were present:

Number one, Brendan Dassey caused the -- the death of Teresa Halbach, or aided and abetted another in causing the direct -- the death of Teresa Halbach.

"Cause" means that the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in producing the death.

Number two, Brendan Dassey acted with the intent to kill Teresa Halbach, whether he did so directly or aided and abetted another.

"Intent to kill" means that the defendant had the mental purpose to take the life of another human being, or was aware that his conduct was practic -- practically certain to cause the death of another human being.

While the law requires that the defendant acted with intent to kill, it does not require that intent exists for any particular length of time before the act is committed. The act need not be brooded over, considered, or reflected upon for a week, a day, an hour, or even a minute. There need not be any appreciable time between the formation of the intent and the act.

The intent to kill may be formed at anytime before the act, including the instant before the act, and must continue to exist at the time of the act.

You cannot look into a person's mind to find intent. Intent to kill must be found, if found at all, from the defendant's acts, words and statements, if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in this case bearing upon intent. Intent should not be confused with motive. While proof of intent is necessary to a conviction, proof of motive is not.

Motive refers to a person's reason for doing something. While motive may be shown as a circumstance to aid in establishing the guilt of a defendant, the State is not required to prove motive on the part of the defendant in order to convict.

Evidence of motive does not, by itself, establish guilt. You should give it the weight you believe it deserves under all of the circumstances.

You're satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt at the conclusion of the trial that the defendant directly committed both elements of first degree intentional homicide, or that the defendant intentionally aided and abetted the commission of that crime, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

Count 2 charges the defendant with mutilating a corpse, also as a party to a crime -- to the crime. Section 939.05 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, provide that whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a party to that crime and may be convicted of that crime although that person did not directly commit it. The State contends that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime of mutilating a corpse by either directly committing it or by intentionally aiding and abetting the person who directly committed it.

If a person intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime, then that person is guilty of the crime as well as the person who directly committed it. Person intentionally aids and abet the com -- abets the commission of a crime when acting with knowledge or belief that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime, he either knowingly assists the person who commits the crime, or is ready and willing to assist, and the person who commits the crime knows of the willingness to assist.

To intentionally aid and abet the crime of mutilating a corpse, the defendant must know that another person is committing or intends to commit the crime of mutilating a corpse and have the purpose to assist the commission of that crime.

Before you may find the defendant guilty of mutilating a corpse as a party to the crime, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant directly committed the crime of mutilating a corpse or intentionally aided and abetted the commission of that crime.

All 12 jurors do not have to agree whether the defendant directly committed the crime of first degree, uh -- or uh, mutilating a corpse or aided and abetted the commission of the crime. However, each juror must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime in one of those ways.

Mutilating a corpse, as defined in Section 940.11 (1) of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is violated by one who mutilates a corpse with intent to conceal a crime, or avoid apprehension, prosecution, or conviction for a crime.

Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following two elements were present:

Number one, Brendan Dassey mutilated the corpse of Teresa Halbach, or aided and abetted another in mutilating the corpse of Teresa Halbach.

Number two, in mutilating the corpse of Teresa Halbach, or in aiding and abetting another in mutilating her corpse, Brendan Dassey acted with the intent to conceal the crime. This requires that the defendant acted with the purpose to conceal a crime.

You cannot look into a person's mind to find out about intent. Intent must be found, if found at all, from the defendant's acts, words and statements, if any, and from all the facts and circumstances in the case bearing upon intent.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt at the conclusion of the trial that Brendan Dassey directly committed both elements of this offense, or that Brendan Dassey directly aided and another -- aided and abetted another in the commission of the crime, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

Count 3 charges the defendant with first degree sexual assault by use or threat of a dangerous weapon, also as a party to a crime. Section 939.05 of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin provides that whoever is concerned in the commission of a crime is a party to that crime and may be convicted of that crime although the person did not directly commit it.

The State contends that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime of first degree sexual assault by either directly committing it or by intentionally aiding and ab -- and abetting the person who directly committed it. The person intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime, then that person is guilty of a crime as well as the person who directly committed it.

Person intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime when acting with knowledge and belief that another person is committing or intends to commit a crime, he knowingly either assists the person who commits the crime or is ready and willing to assist, and the person who commits the crime knows of the willingness to as -- to assist.

To intentionally aid and abet the crime of first degree sexual assault, the defendant must know that another person is committing or intends to commit the crime of first degree sexual assault and have the pers -- have the purpose to assist the commission of that crime. Before you may find the defendant guilty of first degree sexual assault as a party toa crime, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant directly committed the crime of first degree sexual assault or intentionally aided and abetted the commission of that crime.

All 12 jurors do not have to agree whether the defendant directly committed the crime of first degree sexual assault or aided and -- and abetted the commission of that crime. However, each juror must con -- be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was concerned in the commission of the crime in one of those ways.

First degree sexual assault, as defined in Section 940.225 (1) (b) of the Criminal Code of Wisconsin, is committed by one who has sexual intercourse with another person without consent and by use or threat of a dangerous weapon.

Before you find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were present:

Number one, the defendant had sexual intercour -- course with Teresa Halbach.

Number two, Teresa Halbach did not consent to the sexual intercourse.

Number three, the defendant had sexual intercourse with Teresa Halbach by use or threat of a dangerous weapon. This requires that the defendant actually used or threatened to use the dangerous weapon to compel Teresa Halbach to submit to sexual intercourse.

If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that all three elements of first degree sexual assault have been proven, you should find the defendant guilty. If you are not so satisfied, you must find the defendant not guilty.

In reaching your verdict, examine the evidence with care and caution. Act with judgment, reason and prudence.

Defendants are not required to prove their innocence. The law presumes every person charged with the commission of an offense to be innocent. This presumption requires a finding of not guilty unless in your deliberations you find it is overcome by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

The burden of establishing every fact necessary to constitute guilt is upon the State. Before you can return a verdict of guilty, the evidence was -- must satisfy the -- you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

If you can reconcile the evidence upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so and return a verdict of not guilty.

The term "reasonable doubt" means a doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is a doubt for which a person can be given -- uh, for which a reason can be given arising from a fair and rational consideration of the evidence or lack of evidence. It means such a doubt as would cause a person of ordinary prudence to pause or hesitate when called upon to act in the most important affairs of life.

A reasonable doubt is not a doubt which is based on mere guesswork or speculation. A doubt which arises merely from sympathy or from fear to return a verdict of guilt is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not a doubt such as may be used to escape the responsibility of a decision.

While it is your duty to give the defendant the benefit of every reasonable doubt, you are not to search for doubt, you are to search for the truth.

The lawyers will now make opening statements. The purpose of an opening statement is to give the lawyers an opportunity to tell you what they expect the evidence will show so that you can better understand the evidence as it is introduced during the trial. I must caution you, however, that the opening statements are not evidence. Mr. Kratz? Juror Covington, were you able to hear me when I gave these instructions?