First Degree Murder- Federal
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; … or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree …. Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be …


guilty of an offense against the United States.

 

As used in these instructions, the term “malice aforethought” means either to kill another person deliberately and intentionally or to act with callous and wanton disregard for human life.

Proof of the existence of malice does not require a showing that the accused harbored hatred or ill will against the victim or others. (Citations omitted). Neither does it require proof of an intent to kill or injure. (Citations omitted). Malice may be established by evidence of conduct which is “reckless and wanton and a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care, of such a nature that a jury is warranted in inferring that defendant was aware of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm.” (Citations omitted).

As used in these instructions, the word “premeditation” means with planning or deliberation. The passage of time is a factor which you may consider in attempting to determine if a defendant acted with “premeditation.” The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing can depend on the person and the circumstances. The time must be long enough after forming the intent to kill, however, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.

The law permits the jury to determine whether the government has proven the guilt of a defendant for any [less serious] [other] offense which is, by its very nature, necessarily included in the crime of   that is charged in Count   of the indictment.
If the jury should unanimously find that the government has proven each of the essential elements of the offense of that is charged in Count of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, the foreperson should write “guilty” in the space provided and the jury's consideration of that count [for that defendant] is concluded.
If the jury should determine unanimously that the government has not proven each element of the offense of that is charged in Count of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, the foreperson should write “not guilty” in the space provided and the jury should then consider the guilt or innocence of Defendant for the [less serious] [other] offense necessarily included in the offense of charged in Count of the indictment.
If, after reasonable efforts have been unsuccessful, the jury is unable to reach a verdict as to whether or not the government has proven each element of the offense charged in Count of the indictment, the jury should then consider whether Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the [less serious] [other] crime of which is necessarily included in the offense of charged in Count of the indictment.
The crime of , which is charged in Count of the indictment in this case, necessarily includes the [less serious] [other] offense of . In order to find Defendant guilty of the [less serious] [other] included offense, the government must prove the following () essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
One: ,
Two: ,

and
Three: ,

The difference between the crime charged in Count of the indictment and the [less serious] [other] included offense is .
The jury will bear in mind that the burden is always upon the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of any [less serious] [other] offense which is necessarily included in any crime charged in Count of the indictment. The law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.

Defendant   has offered evidence of that [he] [she] was acting in self-defense.
Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. A person acting in self defense, however, must use no more force that appears reasonably necessary under all of the circumstances.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm.
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant did not act in self defense as described in this instruction.
 

 

18 1111 

 
Initial Consultations Are Always Free And Completely Confidential