Jury Charge

JUDGE NEWMAN: Madame Forelady and members of the jury, you have heard the testimony, received the evidence, and heard the arguments of the State and the defendant. I will now explain to you the law that applies to this case. Under the constitution and laws of South Carolina, you are the finders of the facts in this case. I do not have the right to pass upon the facts, or to even express any opinion that I might have as to them because this is a matter solely for you, the jury, to determine. As jurors, then, it is your duty to determine the effect, the value, and the weight of the evidence presented during this trial. As the trial judge, it is my responsibility to preside over the trial of the case, and I have the duty to rule upon or pass upon the admissibility of the evidence offered during the trial. You are to consider only the testimony which has been presented from this witness stand, along with other exhibits that -- and evidence presented during the trial.

Any other evidence or exhibits which have been made a part of the record you may consider, along with any stipulations made by counsel. I have the additional duty to charge you the law applicable to this case. And as the presiding judge I am the sole judge of the law. It is your duty as jurors to accept and apply the law as I now state it to, then to deliberate in an effort to reach your verdict. And finally, I charge you in this regard that you should not be concerned with what you think the law ought to be, but what I charge you that the law is. You are also the judges, the sole judges of the credibility, that is the believability, of the witnesses who have testified and of the evidence offered. In considering credibility, you may take into consideration many things, such as the demeanor or manner of testifying. Whether the witness had reason to be biased or prejudiced. Whether the testimony was contradicted on the one hand, or supported and corroborated on the other hand.

You may believe a small portion of a witness's testimony and disregard the larger, or vice versa. All of these things you will consider, bearing in mind that you should give the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. It becomes your duty as jurors to analyze and to evaluate the evidence, and determine that evidence, which convinces you of its truth. There are two types of evidence which are generally presented during a trial: direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence directly proves the existence of a fact and does not require deductions. Circumstantial evidence is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact. Crimes may be proven by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence.

However, to the extent the State relies on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be consistent with each other, and when taken together point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If these circumstances merely portray the defendant's behavior as suspicious, the proof has failed. The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden rests with the State regardless of whether the State relies on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or some combination of the two. The rules of evidence ordinarily do not permit witnesses to testify to opinions or conclusions. An exception to this rule exists for witnesses we call expert witnesses.

An expert witness is a witness who by education and experience has become an expert in some art, science, profession, or calling, and may state an opinion as to relevant and material matter in which the witness claims to be an expert, and may also state the reasons for the opinion. You should consider any expert opinion received in evidence, and like any other evidence, give it the weight you think it deserves. If you decide that the opinion of an expert is not based on sufficient education and experience, or if you conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, you may then disregard the opinion entirely. An expert witness's testimony is to be given no greater weight than that of any other witness simply because a witness is an expert. Further, you are not required to accept an expert's opinion, even though it is not contradicted.

In regard to evidence of other crimes and evidence of alleged acts on other occasions, this evidence is limited to consideration by you as it relates to the motive of the defendant for the offenses charged in this case. This evidence cannot be used for any other purpose. This type of evidence must not be considered in any other fashion. In particular, the South Carolina Rules of Evidence provide that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show actions in conformity therewith. To put another way, evidence of other crimes or bad acts cannot be show -- cannot be used to show that the defendant is a bad person and, therefore, is more likely to have admitted the crime for which he is accused. You may not consider evidence of other crimes and bad acts for this purpose, or for any other purpose other than as it relates to motive of the defendant.

In addition, while you may have heard that other crimes and bad acts of the defendant have resulted in other charges or indictments not before you, the fact that the defendant was arrested, charged, and indicted in these matters is not evidence, and cannot be considered by you as evidence of guilt in this case, nor do these indictments create any presumption of guilt. As to any other pending charges, as is the case here, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the State in a court of law. The function of the jury is to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty, and the consequences of a conviction in this or other pending matters is of no aid in determining whether the defendant committed the offense. You should not consider nor speculate about sentencing consequences for this or any other crimes, as those issues are not before you.

The fact that the defendant was arrested, charged, and indicted in this case is not evidence, and cannot be considered by you as evidence of guilt, nor does it create any presumption or inference of guilt. The indictments are simply the formal written instruments which contain the charges made against the defendant. The indictments are the formal documents by which this case is brought into this court. The defendant, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, has pled not guilty to the indictments, and that plea puts the burden on the State to prove the defendant guilty. A person charged with committing a criminal offense in South Carolina is never required to prove himself innocent.

I charge you that it is an important rule of the law that the defendant in a criminal trial, no matter what the seriousness of the charge may be, will always be presumed to be innocent of the crime for which the indictment was issued unless guilt has been proven by evidence satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This presumption of innocence does not end when you begin your deliberations, but it accompanies the defendant throughout the trial until you reach a verdict of guilt based on evidence satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is like a robe of righteousness placed about the shoulders of the defendant, which remains with the defendant until it has been stripped from the defendant by evidence satisfying you of that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is not a mere legal theory; it's not just a legal phrase.

It is a substantial right to which every defendant is entitled unless you, the jury, are satisfied from the evidence of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. The State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So, what is a reasonable doubt in the law? A reasonable doubt is a doubt which makes an honest, reasonable, sincere, and conscientious juror hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is, therefore, proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of her -- his or her own affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt can also be described as proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the guilt of the defendant. Now, there are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.

If based on your consideration of the evidence you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of a crime charged, you must then find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must then give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty. The indictments in this case allege four separate offenses against the defendant. The indictments are murder of Margaret Maggie. Maggie Murdaugh, murder. The murder of Paul Murdaugh. Possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime involving the murder of Margaret, Maggie, Murdaugh. And possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime involving the murder of Paul Murdaugh. Each indictment charges a separate and distinct offense. You must decide each indictment separately on the evidence and the law applicable to it uninfluenced by your decision as to any other indictment.

The defendant may be convicted or acquitted on any or all of the offenses charged. You will be asked to write a separate verdict of guilty or not guilty for each indictment. The defendant, Richard Alexander Murdaugh, is charged with the murder of Maggie -- of Margaret Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed Margaret Murdaugh and Paul Murdaugh with malice aforethought. Malice is hatred, ill will, or hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse, and with an intent to inflict an injury, or under the circumstances that the law will infer an evil intent. Malice aforethought does not require that malice exists for any particular time before the act is committed, but malice must exist in the mind of the defendant just before and at the time the act is committed. Therefore, there must be a combination of the previous evil intent and the act.

Malice aforethought may be expressed or inferred. These terms, express and inferred, do not mean different kinds of malice, but merely the manner in which malice may be shown to exist. That is either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances which are proven. Expressed malice is shown when a person speaks words which express hatred or ill will for another, or when the person prepared beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished. For example, lying in wait for a person, or any other acts of preparation going to show that the deed was within the mind of the defendant, would be expressed malice. Malice may be inferred from conduct showing a total disregard for human life. The defendant is also charged with possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, two counts. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.

A firearm means any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile. In order to find the defendant guilty of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, you must first find the defendant guilty of committing a violent crime. Murder is a violent crime. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the weapon furthered, advanced, or helped in the commission of the crime. While the arguments of counsel are a beneficial part of every trial, you should remember that the statements made by counsel are not evidence. In presenting their arguments, counsel often refer -- or have referred to the evidence. However, you should base your verdict on the evidence as you remember it. If there are any conflicts between the recollection of counsel about the evidence and your own recollection, you should rely on your own understanding of the evidence.

You must decide whether the State has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom. As you were instructed at the start of the trial, you're not to permit -- you are not permitted to conduct any independent research about this case, the facts of the case, the evidence presented in the case, or the people or organizations involved in any way in the case. Do not try to find any information from any source outside of the courtroom, however reliable that source may seem to be. Do not look at dictionaries or other reference materials, search the Internet, websites, or blogs, or use any other electronic tools to get information about this case, or help you make a decision.

You may not use computers, telephones, cell phones, smartphones, tablets, the Internet, or other tools of technology with communication capabilities at any time during your deliberations, except only as provided by the Court to review the digital evidence in this case. If your deliberations necessitate an overnight break, you may use these devices as necessary, but you may not use them to communicate with anyone about the case until the case is over. This means that you must not use phone calls, video calls, emails, text messages, instant messages, blogs, chat rooms, websites, or any social media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Reddit, and Discord to send or receive any information about this case. This includes information about the party, the witness, an attorney, a court officer, or your fellow jurors.

News accounts about the case, research on any topic raised, or even any topics you may think would be helpful in deciding the case, or any testimony presented by any witness you may not investigate. During your deliberations do not read, listen to, or watch any news reports about this case. This includes anything that may be in the newspapers or on the Internet, radio, or television. You must not consider anything you may have read or heard about the case outside of the courtroom, whether before or during the trial. Information on television, radio, Internet, or other sources may be wrong or incomplete. In our judicial system, it is important that you are not influenced by anything or anyone outside of this courtroom. If your deliberations necessitate an overnight break, even though you may use electronic devices as necessary for purposes unrelated to this trial, I must urge you to minimize your use of such devices.

Many Internet browsers, smartphone apps, and social media services, as well as traditional media like television and radio will provide information and news that you do not seek with little or no prompting. It is a strong possibility that information about this case may be thrust upon you every time you use an electronic device. You must, therefore, use these devices only as absolutely necessary. You must ignore and avoid uninvited information about this case. Now, Madame Forelady and members of the jury, I am required to charge you the law as I have done through these instructions now being given to help guide you to a just and lawful verdict. Whether some of these instructions apply will depend on what you find to be the facts. The fact that I have instructed you on various subjects must not be considered as indicating an opinion of this Court as to what you should find to be the facts, or what your verdict should be.

In conclusion now, you've been chosen and sworn to give the parties a fair and impartial trial. When you have done so, you will have completed your oath, and no one will have a right to criticize your verdict. You must not be swayed or influenced by opinions or expression of an opinion you may have heard outside of the courtroom, but rather should base your verdict solely on the testimony of the sworn witnesses who took the stand, the exhibits received into evidence, and the law which I have stated. You should not be swayed by caprice, passion, prejudice, or improper sympathy for or against anyone. Remember, you have no friends to reward or enemies to punish, that all parties are entitled to a fair and impartial trial. It is your duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate in an effort to reach an agreement. Each of you must decide this case for yourself, but only after impartial consideration of all of the evidence with your fellow jurors.

In the course of your deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and change your opinion if you become convinced it is erroneous. However, do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors, or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. As I stated earlier, you are the judges, judges of the facts. Your verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. In other words, your verdict must be unanimous. Now, you may have noticed that I have read these instructions. I do so to give you the law as accurately as possible. I will give you a copy of these instructions to have in the jury room. You may refer to these instructions to assist you in your deliberations. You must consider the instructions as a whole and not follow some and ignore others. Madame Forelady, it will be your duty to preside over the deliberations of the jury.

If during your deliberations you should desire to communicate with the Court, please reduce your message or question to writing signed by your foreperson and the foreperson only. Do not address any questions to anyone other than the Court and reduce it to writing, and pass it to the bailiff, signed by the foreperson and the foreperson only. It will then be brought to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible either in writing or by having you return to the courtroom. I caution you, however, with regard to any message or question you might send, that you should never state or specify your numerical division at the time. Now, you heard the testimony, and you have heard the law. Whatever your verdict, Madame Forelady, you will indicate the verdict on the back of each indictment, and then sign and date your verdict.

You will have these four indictments, and on the back of each indictment is a place for verdict, and each one -- as -- each one you will write the verdict, either not guilty or guilty, and sign and date the verdict. You are not authorized to write the verdict until all of you have agreed on the verdict. Now, in just a minute I will send you to the jury room, but prior to doing so I want to ensure that the twelve jurors we have remaining, if there is any reason that any one of you cannot continue deliberating, please let me know at this time. We have thirteen jurors. Only twelve can deliberate. So, out of the first twelve jurors now on the panel, if there are any reasons why you cannot continue, please let me know at this time before I excuse the alternate. It's a show of hands as to anyone who cannot continue deliberating. All jurors then seem to be in good shape and good to go, so when the jurors -- when the jury leaves the courtroom, the alternate will remain.

I will send you to the jury room, all of you except for the alternate, but do not begin deliberations until you have received a copy of this jury charge, the indictments, and the exhibits. Once you receive these things, that will be your signal to begin your deliberations. Once you begin deliberations, you will deliberate until you have reached a verdict, at which time you will knock on the door, advise the bailiff, and we will bring you out to receive your verdict. So, if all of you will now go to the jury room except for the alternate. Juror number 741, you'll remain with us. All of the others go to the jury room.