Jury Instructions for Defendent's Motion for Self-Defense
To: Senior Attorney
From: Jordan Muhsin
RE: Jeffrey Bing Matter
Defendant’s Motion for Self-Defense Jury Instructions
The People of the State of Illinois
v.
Jeffrey Bing
No. 00 CR-1234567.
STATE OF ILLINOIS)
SS
)
COUNTY OF COOK
Introduction
The following are the Jury instructions for the defendant’s motion for self-defense.
As the Jury, you are responsible for determining the facts, considering the merit, and determining weight of evidence presented by both parties presented under Illinois law. The lawyers are not witnesses to the events presented before you; yet act as representatives to those involved in this process. Although an argument may be appealing, it must be supported by empirical evidence. Thus, any verdict of guilt must be made “beyond a reasonable doubt” when viewed in light most favorable to the opposing counsel.
You are the judges of the outcome of this case. Your decisions should not only consider the evidence; but Court rulings to previous cases with similar facts made under Illinois law. It is your sworn duty and obligation to judge the facts; not any other member of this court.
Therefore, we present the argument of this case; that Mr. Bing likely acted in self-defense, using reasonable force under Illinois law.
Argument
SEVERAL SHOTS BEING FIRED—OR FIRING AFTER AN ATTACK IS OVER—WILL NOT NESSICARILY NEGATE A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE
As the jury, your verdict of Mr. Bing’s case should consider what the Court has previously considered to be defined as “self-defense.” In People v. S.M., 416 N.E.2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981), the court reasoned that the respondent had fired four sequential shots; noting that firing after making “repeated efforts to flee.” People v. S.M., 416 N.E.2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981) The fact that shots were fired after the initial attack was over did not negate the potential for self-defense. Moreover, the Court saw that the respondent’s ability to stop firing after stopping his four attackers as showing “reasonability.” Id.
Similarly, in the present case Mr. Bing gave multiple warnings before he fired a single shot. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Unlike S.M., Mr. Bing’s gun was registered. Like S.M., Mr. Bing stopped firing immediately after the imminent threat to his life had ended. Id. Dissimilarly, in People v. S.M., the respondent shot four people; whereas Mr. Bing’s conflict was with a single individual. People v. S.M., 416 N.E.2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).
A CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE REQUIRES REASONABLE BELIEF
Your verdict ought to consider that in People v. Smith, (Ill 1st Cir 2022), the Court held that “a person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” People v. Smith, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022).
The trial court initially found Jason Smith (Jason) guilty of second degree murder. Jason appealed, stating that the evidence did not prove him guilty of second degree murder “beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Smith, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022). The Court held that “Jason presented evidence supporting findings in his favor on all elements of self-defense, including justification for the use of deadly force.” Id. The Court reasoned that “the trial court’s finding of guilt rested on its belief that the State proved that Larkins did not rob Jason. Unrebutted evidence showed that Larkins took cash from Jason and used force to keep it.” Id. The Court cited a previous ruling that “[i]n Illinois, a person who uses forceful self-help to recoup gambling losses commits robbery.” Id. Thus, the Court concluded that Jason “showed all the necessary elements of self-defense. The State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the negative of any element necessary for a finding that Jason acted in self-defense;” ruling that “[a]ccording, we reverse the conviction.” Id.
Similarly, in People v. Smith, (2022) the Court stated that “[t]o raise a claim of self-defense, a defendant must present evidence supporting each of the following elements;” (1) “force had been threatened against the defendant;” (2) “the defendant was not the aggressor;” (3) “the danger of harm was imminent;” (4) “the force threatened was unlawful;” (5) “[the] defendant actually believed that a danger existed;” and (6) “the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable.” People v. Smith, (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022).
Here, Mr. Bing’s case correlates with People v. Graves (Ill. 1st Cir 2024), whereby the Court cited a previous ruling; that “the test of self-defense is not what the fact finder thinks a reasonable person would believe but what the defendant as a reasonable [person] believed under the circumstances.” People v. Graves (Ill. 1st Cir 2024). Similarly, Mr. Bing stated he did not want to kill Mr. Geller, but feared for his life; feeling that he had no other choice. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024).
A CHARGE OF MURDER MUST BE WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION
Your verdict must consider whether Mr. Bing’s response to his attacker was “without lawful justification.” Like in People v. Graves, (Ill. 1st Cir 2024), the Court under Illinois statute; ruled that “[f]irst-degree murder occurs when a person kills another individual without lawful justification. 720 ILCS 5/9-1 (West).” People v. Graves, (Ill. App. 1st Cir 2024). Here, Mr. Bing appears lawfully justified in his use of force against Mr. Geller under Illinois law. 720 ILCS 5/9-1.
The elements of self-defense must be present under a claim of self-defense. The Court stated that Tiera Graves “believed she was defending herself and that it was necessary to shoot Duffie to prevent her death.” People v. Graves (Ill. 1st Cir 2024). The Court held that “Graves met the elements of self-defense under the circumstances of this case.” The Court reasoned that Duffie had “threatened Graves with a knife, punched a hole in the apartment wall, and punched the fish tank causing debris to spill onto the floor. The Court added in their reasoning “the law does not charge a person in Grave’s situation to use infallible judgment when she believes she is in danger of losing her life or suffering great bodily harm.” In People v. Graves (Ill. 1st Cir 2024), although Duffie was armed with a kitchen knife and threatened to stab Graves, the Court declared that “the law does not require the deceased to possess or use a deadly weapon to justify self-defense.” Id. Similarly, here Mr. Geller did not have a gun; yet like Duffie brandished a knife and verbalized an intention to harm.
It may be disputed that Graves waited until Duffie was “at least two feet away” before shooting; whereas Mr. Bing shot Mr. Geller at a ten foot distance. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). But here Mr. Geller (Mr. Bing’s attacker) was armed with a hunting knife, not a kitchen knife; and informed the defendant his specific intention to kill. Id. In People v. S.M., the respondent fired sequential shots in self-defense when the attackers were “‘about 10, 15’ feet from the respondent.” People v. S.M., 416 N.E.2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).
A CHARGE OF MURDER MUST PROVE GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
Your verdict, as the Jury, must prove Mr. Bing’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In People v. Willingham, 186 N.E.3d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022), the Court declared that in “the State’s closing argument . . . Mr. Willingham’s testimony and version of events [were] completely uncorroborated;” leading to a partial reversal. People v. Willingham, 186 N.E.3d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022). The Court declared that Mr. Willingham—previously found guilty of first-degree murder—reviewing previous evidence had shown “actual innocence,” and “ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” Id. Here, Mr. Bing has both (1) strong evidence supporting his actions and (2) eyewitness testimony. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024).
After decades of litigation, Mr. Willingham filed a petition for rehearing and a motion to cite additional authority; a ruling that had occurred in 2020; the Court granted both requests. People v. Willingham, 186 N.E.3d 912 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Cir 2022). Willingham argued on appeal that “the circuit court erred in finding his postconviction petition” resulting in the failure to prove “actual innocence;” thus ineffective assistance at trial. Id. The trial court had found Mr. Willingham guilty of first-degree murder. Id. But the Court held that although “it is significant that the jury was informed who the victim of the attempted murder charge was by the indictment.” Id. The Court reasoned that the “jury was informed who the victim of the attempted murder charge was by the indictment . . . [t]he jury in this case was thus properly instructed on the law of attempted murder.” Id. The Court cited that “[t]here is no duty to retreat in Illinois if one is not the initial aggressor.” Id. Here, Mr. Bing was not the aggressor, and suffered a physical attack from Mr. Geller prior to his use of force. Senior Attorney, Senior Attorney Memorandum Re: Jeffrey Bing Matter (August 24th, 2024). Mr. Bing’s use of self-defense was supported by Mr. Newton, who was cut with a hunting knife trying to lift Mr. Geller off of Mr. Bing. Id. Mr. Newton attested that he had never seen Mr. Geller in this condition. Id.
A DISPUTED QUESTION OF SELF-DEFENSE IS FOR THE JURY TO DECIDE
Like in People v. Goliday, defendant Jerry Goliday was convicted of murder by a trial court. People v. Goliday, 584 N.E.2d 432 (Ill 3d Cir 1991). The court held that instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction.” Id. But the Court reasoned that “[w]here there is a disputed question as to self-defense”—as in our present case of Mr. Bing.—“it is a question for the jury to decide . . . it is for the jury to decide what witnesses to believe and what weight to give their testimony.”
Dissimilarly in Goliday, the facts of the case were unclear. Mr. Bing’s evidence of self-defense appears clear. In People v. Goliday, 584 N.E.2d 432 (Ill 3d Cir 1991), the Court adjudicated a reversal and thus remanded for a new trial. Goliday had claimed that his victim had approached him with a baseball bat. Unlike in Goliday, in our present case Mr. Bing used a single bullet to stop his attacker, whereas Jerry Goliday stabbed his victim multiple times in the head to prevent him from retreating, stabbing a second person in the process. As the jury, you must ask yourselves what each of you would personally do; or find reasonable in Mr. Bing’s situation—after being beaten, threatened to be killed, then charged with a hunting knife.
Conclusion
Under these circumstances, as in this case, it falls on you, the jury, to observe and consider the facts and evidence from both parties. Mr. Bing’s claim of self-defense must be supported under Illinois law; whereas his guilt must be provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
In summary, several shots being fired, or firing after an attack is over, will not necessarily negate a claim of self-defense. A claim of self-defense requires reasonable belief that a threat to life is imminent. A charge of first-degree murder must lack lawful justification. A charge of murder must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any disputed question of self-defense is for you, the jury, to decide.