Why opportunity mattered
Of everything the State had to prove, one thing came before all the rest: that I was there.
The judge read this instruction to the jury:
The People must prove that the defendant committed murder. The defendant contends that he did not commit this crime and that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed. The People must prove that the defendant was present and committed the crime with which he is charged. The defendant does not need to prove that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime.
If you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant was present when the crime was committed, you must find him not guilty.
Jury instruction as read by the court, RT 8181:4-14
See page 8181
The judge also told the jury that motive, by itself, proves nothing:
However, having a motive, cannot prove guilt by itself.
Jury instruction as read by the court, RT 8172:12-13
See page 8172
A motive, even if it were proven, does not put anyone at the scene. If I was not there, nothing else the State alleged could make me guilty. That is why the State’s alleged window of opportunity was the center of its case, and why each part of it is examined on the pages below, with the State’s own records.
All quotations are from the Reporter’s Transcript (RT), People v. Merritt, San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. FVI1404194: jury instructions of May 28, 2019.