"You have a right to testify in this case. If you want to testify, no one can prevent you from doing so."
If he does testify, the DA would be allowed to cross-examine him
Judge explaining the defendant has constitutional right to testify, but does not have to. And if he doesn't, it cannot be held against him
"It is a personal decision" Samour tells the defendant
Judge says he isn't asking for a decision, but wants the defendant to acknowledge he understands the advisement
"He just said he understands"
"Do you have any questions for me Mr. Holmes?" "No"
"Do you understand your right to not testify?" "Yes"
Judge says he'll ask for a final decision in the future
"I find that he understands the advisement, that he doesn't have any questions about it."
Edson explaining he wants to add a La Quinta hotel reservation email to the court records (not exhibits)
Judge decides to just add the missing email to the court's records
Next: On to instructions, submitted by the prosecution
Judge says defense filed their version of the instructions yesterday
Samour also has his own draft of the instructions too, and he's going to go line-by-line
Instruction #1: "Members of the jury" and says he's made it consistent with the defense's proposal
I just checked the court's library of documents, but I do not see the instructions on there
Jurors will not be allowed to have electronics in the deliberation room
Jurors will not be allowed to discuss the case unless they're all together
Orman questioning if trademark symbols in the instruction document is necessary. Judge agrees they don't need it
Instruction #2: Talks about the charges. Samour seems to think his is partially in agreement with both sides
Judge says defense did not follow the model instruction, prosecution did. Defense split the instruction into two
Judge is proposing to remove the county names so that the charges would be simpler
@Tara: Please don't jump to conclusions. There's nothing to suggest that