Judge asks what the chances of finishing tomorrow might be
Judge wants to have a conference about instructions right now
Judge asking one or two attorneys to stay here now
Judge says they won't stay past 6
Judge is taking a 10 minute break now
OK Judge just got back into the room. Going live now
Judge says he would like to move through the draft of the instructions and respond to any question/objection the attorneys have
First instruction begins with "members of the jury, phase 2 has been completed"
Judge Samour offers to let attorneys stay seated, as long as they speak into the mic
First note from the attorneys is to ask language to be changed from to "deliberate" and defense objects
Defense says there's nothing improper about the sentence as it appears now
Defense argues that deliberations are included in this instruction,
Judge notes the sentence in question isn't completely accurate, because they're asked to deliberate and deliver a single verdict
Prosecution objects to a line as confusion, but judge says he used it because both sides suggested it
Nelson argues it should remain as is, because she wants to clarify for the jury this is a separate decision from previous deliberations
Nelson's next objection relates to "you must reach your phase 2 sentencing verdicts..." and they contend it isn't entirely accurate "because it is an individual moral decision" and defense doesn't want moral judgement or mercy to be excluded
Edwards argues "reasoned moral judgement" is a reasoning process based on what the jurors heard in the courtroom
Judge overrules the objection
Nelson's next objection is regarding a later bullet point
Edwards has no objection, but Nelson objects to "despite" and argues it should say "regardless of your verdicts in phase one"
Judge disagrees but says he's willing to change it
Defense is going to submit a theory of mitigating defense instruction, but Nelson isn't ready yet for that. Skipping it and moving on now
Next instruction, Judge says, defines mitigation and how it might/might not be limited, then the process for deliberations
Edwards says mental health is a mitigation factor the defense is asking for. Edwards says that this draft requires the jury to consider it when, he says, it should be up to them
Judge disagrees, says the jury doesn't have Edward's experience and therefore isn't likely to understand it in that way
Edwards next objects to a "tension... between reliability and arbitrariness"
Edwards citing other cases where defense attorneys submitted a list of mitigating factors, and argues the defense should be required to do so here
"I'm completely befuddled by Mr. Edwards argument" Nelson says.
Nelson cites constitution and other cases in support of her argument that mitigation doesn't have to be submitted by the defense
@trl2: He's an expert from the AG's office temporarily working for the DA