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.