THE COURT:  The inference or conclusion to be 
             drawn, however, must flow naturally from the proven facts and 
             be consistent and point only to guilt and must exclude beyond 
             a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, 
             and you must not draw the inference of built, but of 
             innocence.  If two inferences may be drawn, you must draw the 
             inference most favorable to the defendant.  No defendant in a 
             criminal case is compelled to take the witness stand or to 
             call witnesses.  If he does, however, he becomes a witness 
             for all purposes, and may be subjected to the same tests 
             which are applied to all other witnesses. 
                       In this case, the defendant, Omar Spruill, took the 
             witness stand and test in his own behalf.  I charge you that 
             as a matter of law the defendant, Omar Spruill, is an 
             interested witness.  He is an interested witness because of 
             some unpleasant or serious consequences for the defendant may 
             result from the jury's verdict if the verdict is not in his 
             favor.  This, of course, does not mean that you should 
             disregard the defendant's testimony.  The interest of the 
             defendant is merely one element that you have the right to 
             consider in evaluating his testimony. 
                       Now, in addition to the law stating that Omar 
             Spruill is an interested witness in the outcome of the case, 
             as a matter of law, the law goes further, and says that if 
             you find that any other witness or witnesses are interested 
             in the outcome of the case, as a matter of fact, and you are 
             the sole judges of the facts, then you may weigh the 
             testimony of that witness in the light of his interest.  You 
             alone have the power to determine whether the defendant or 
             any witness was truthful or not truthful, and what weight you 
             should give to his testimony. 
                       The defendant, Julien Peters, did not testify.  The 
             law states that the fact that the defendant did not testify 
             is not a factor from which any inference unfavorable to the 
             defendant may be drawn. 
                       So there it is, there is the case.  The case was 
             rather long.  We have had a number of witnesses.  You have 
             had the opportunity to see the witnesses, to hear their 
             testimony and to determine whether they are telling the truth 
             or not. 
                       Now, the law also demands that I charge you as 
             follows:  The jury may not in determining the issue of guilt 
             or innocence consider or speculate concerning matters 
             relating to sentence or punishment.  You should consider only 
             the evidence you find to be credible.  Bear in mind it is not 
             the number of witnesses on either side, but the weight and 
             convincing quality of the evidence. 
                       You have had an opportunity to observe all the 
             witnesses, and if you believe any witness has testified 
             falsely to any material fact, you are at liberty to disregard 
             the entire testimony of that witness.  You don't have to, 
             because you may accept that part of the testimony which you 
             believe, and reject that part which you believe to be false. 
                       Weigh all of the evidence carefully.  Apply to the 
             witnesses those tests you apply in your everyday life.  Do 
             they have any motive for misrepresenting the true version of 
             the facts?  Is there any testimony that is suspicious?  Are 
             they biased or hostile?  Is it tainted with falsehood or is 
             it frank and honest?  Because it is for you to say whether or 
             not from all the circumstances surrounding the alleged 
             commission of the crime, the prosecution has proved beyond a 
             reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. 
                       In evaluating a witness' credibility you may 
             consider whether the testimony is supported or contradicted 
             by any other evidence.  As I have told you, police officers 
             are not entitled to any more or less credibility merely 
             because they are police officers.  The verdict must be your 
             individual verdict and you are not to surrender your position 
             merely because you are in a minority or any other reason than 
             being convinced by the arguments of your fellow jurors. 
                       I must also charge you that you are not to consider 
             similar pathology for the victim or his family or for the 
             defendant.  Your verdict must be based solely upon the 
             credible evidence. 
                       The word "verdict" means "speak the truth."  If you 
             return a verdict that speaks truth, nobody is going to find 
             fault with you.  I don't have any opinion at all as to the 
             innocence or guilt of the defendants.  I don't have any 
             opinion as to the credibility of any of the witnesses.  The 
             law does not permit me to.  You are the sole judges of the 
             facts.  I am the judge insofar as the law.  When you return 
             your verdict, I am not even going to tell you whether I agree 
             with your verdict or whether I disagree with your verdict.  I 
             am merely going to thank you for the attention you paid to 
             this Court for returning a verdict. 
                       This completes my final instructions.  However, as 
             to the issue of smoking in the courtroom, in the jury room, 
             you may not discuss this case until all twelve of you are 
             together.  Therefore, if any of you wish to smoke, and your 
             smoking will cause discomfort to any of your fellow jurors, 
             it will be necessary for you to leave the jury room escorted 
             by a court officer and you may not discuss the case while 
             outside the jury room.  Those remaining may not deliberate 
             until the smokers have returned to the room. 
                       The Clerk will hand you a verdict sheet as to the 
             defendants.  When you have all agreed upon a verdict, please 
             mark the verdict sheet and send a note to the Court through 
             the court officer that you have reached a unanimous verdict.