Orman states he believes language in the instructions is "argumentative"
First citation is paragraph 11: "To the contrary..." and he says that needs to be removed or changed
Judge disagrees on this one. Reads more of it aloud, and it turns out to be a paragraph about the defendant's childhood and school performance
Orman next asserts that "Unbeknownst to" is argumentative
Nelson replies that "I don't really understand why that's an argumentative word"
Judge says it doesn't bother him. No change
Orman's next argument is "...this lack of motivation was another prodromal negative system..." and he says he doesn't remember it from testimony, says it is a reasonable inference that belongs in their arguments instead of the instruction
Nelson cites Dr. Metzner, Gur, Reid, Woodcock in support of her version
@Resa: outgoing signal is normal, in the green
Nelson arguing that the guman's lack of motivation should be defined. Judge says he belives Dr. Gur mentioned it but asks them to check
Orman's next objection is "even" is argumentative. Judge agrees with him
@right: I believe you are being sarcastic, but it literally is their job to show him in the best possible light in this phase.
Orman's next argument is again that an item of reasonable inference hasn't been testified to and shouldn't be included in the instruction
Orman also argues that people "mistook" the gunman's characteristics
Nelson argues that experts testified (Gur, Woodcock, Metzner) about his grad school time as a period when symptoms worsened
Judge agrees with Nelson for the first, disagrees about the last sentence. That will be deleted
Judge explains testimony does support the assertion that the research assistants recall the defendant as making effort to avoid social interaction.
Nelson suggests a change to "Perceived"
Judge says that is redundant to the previous sentence that says people missed the signs of mental illness