Judge says he's bound by clarifying instruction from the supreme court, but is willing to exchange words criminal and illegal
Next is instructions on how to fill out the verdict form
Defense says they object to this instruction, because they're proposing an entirely different verdict form
I:03 full title is "INT Affirmative defense of insanity - Interrogatory (more than one felony charge)
Judge says he is going to make a change, and resubmit the draft to the attorneys
Next is #21: Talks about jury permitted to submit questions
Instruction #22 is about jury having questions during deliberations
Instruction #23 is about verdict forms and about bailiff escorting them to jury room. Judge says this is the last one on his list.
judge says he needs to add crime of violence, incendiary devices and may consider adding "lesser included offenses" which means that murder also includes manslaughter by definition
Samour discussing title of the after deliberation charge. Saying that he likes using the shorter title
Judge returns to instruction #10, says he added NGRI "because I think it is appropriate"
Judge also clarifies that he's removed the "[she]" from the instructions to make it gender appropriate
Judge points out culpable mental state instruction (#11) that he included the optional line about possession of property
@Victoria: I'm not in there, so I don't know today who is. Both have been there on other days
Next definition discussed is "substantial step" and will not be given
Judge says the "lesser included offenses" is the next thing they need to discuss
Orman: "I don't see any way a rational jury could come in and say he is being reckless"
To recap: This discussion is about how the jury should be instructed about finding the defendant not guilty of murder 1 but guilty of a lesser version (and same for the other charges)
Orman repeats that he doesn't believe the lesser offenses are rational
@TammyGarrison: I don't think death penalty could be applied in that instance, but I'm not 100%
Judge says he's avoided defining "complaint" which is the listed charges
Orman wants to discuss muddle (sp?) instruction. (I'm Not sure what that means)
Orman also adjusts "reckless manslaughter" to "manslaughter" to match with state law
Orman brings up wanting to know when they can call witnesses for a rebuttal case
Orman says they have at least 1 witness for rebuttal: Dr. Phillip Resnick
Samour also says it would help to know their estimated end date, so they could have another jury instruction hearing
Dr. Resnick is someone the prosecution says will rebut testimony of a defense doctor
Goodbye everyone. See you tomorrow