evidence, the degree of proof necessary to convict is that you be satisfied of the guilt of a defendant beyond any reasonable doubt. any out-of-court statement made by one of the defendants on trial in this case after the alleged criminal act has ended may be considered only against the person who made the statement and only if you find that such statement was freely and voluntarily made. if you find that an out of court statement was made to the police freely and voluntarily by the defendant on trial in this case, then you are to consider the statement only as against the particular defendant who made it. now, members of the jury, this court is responsible for determining the admissibility of certain evidence with regard to statements in this case. sometimes full audio and/or video recordings cannot be played for you for legal reasons. you are not to make any
must be freely and willingly given and without coercion, duress, threats, use of violence, fear of injury, or any suggestions or promises of leniency or reward. a statement induced by the slightest hope or benefit or the remotest fear of injury is not voluntary. to be voluntary, a statement must be the product of a free will and not under compulsion or any necessity imposed by others. the burden of proof is upon the state to establish that the statement was voluntary, that is, freely and willingly made. if you do not find that the statement was voluntarily, you may not consider it for any purpose. you should consider with great care and caution the evidence of any out-of-court statement allegedly made by a defendant offered by the state. the jury may believe any such statement in whole or in part.
particularly when a person brings the weapon to the fight, as it were? exactly. and, you know, the prosecutor sort of made that point in her closing, not necessarily in rebuttal, but she said, you know, they were the ones that brought the gun to the knife fight, so to speak. well, in this instance, they brought a gun to arbery s jog. so there is in the law, there s this idea of proportionality, and the prosecutor made that clear that when you have a self-defense claim, you can only use a proportionate amount of defense to make yourself sort of safe in that regard. so, what is a proportionate amount of defense when somebody is unarmed? she noted over and over again, you know, the bagginess of arbery s pants, that it was clear that he went armed, that in the defendant s post-arrest statements, they did not make it clear that they thought necessarily that he was armed.
agent seacrest knows. i can t compel anyone to talk to me. all right, let s go ahead and talk about defendant bryan. 307 burford. you ve seen the video, i m not playing it for you again. it s motion activated on the truck. travis mcmichael s white f-15 pickup truck comes in front. driveway decision. this is important, ladies and gentlemen. this is really important. y all got him?! why is this important? what does this say? mr. bryan, from his porch, can tell that they are chasing and trying to falsely imprison, stop, define confine, mr. arbery. he can tell it from his porch. he knows exactly what they re doing. y all got him?! he knows what they re doing.
lack of evidence, a conflict in the evidence, or any combination of these. there is no burden of proof upon the defendants whatsoever, and the burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his innocence. when a a defense is raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the state to negate or disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. though you may consider all of the evidence as a whole, conviction of one defendant does not necessarily require conviction of another. you, the jury, must determine whether the state has proven the guilt of each defendant beyond a reasonable doubt as to each count. if, after giving considerations to all the facts and circumstances of this case, your minds are wavering, unsatisfied, that is a doubt of the law and you must acquit that defendant. but if that doubt does not exist in your minds about the guilt of the accused, you will be