Speak the Truth: Instructions to the Dahmer Jury

It took just five hours for a jury to find Jeffrey Dahmer legally sane.

The verdict was met with resounding relief from the victims‘ friends and family – most of whom praised the Lord and District Attorney Michael McCann, grateful that the loss of their loved ones wouldn’t be dismissed simply as the byproduct of a madman.

Dahmer’s ability to control when he killed, the steps he took to conceal evidence¹, the fact he had to be drunk to overcome his inhibitions against harming people – and even his own admission that he knew murder was wrong – all factored into the conclusion that Dahmer belonged in prison, rather than a mental institution.

Much of the general public seemed to agree: with one Wisconsin survey finding that only 1 of its 10 contacted residents thought Dahmer fit the criteria for insanity. “Nobody can work in a candy factory for five years and pick and choose when he will be insane or sane,” said Sheboygan local Russell Miller. “He may have been sick, but he knew what he was doing. An insane person is insane 100% of the time.” Another revealed that most of her classmates had hoped the jury would find Dahmer sane. “He doesn’t have the right to ever walk the streets again,” she added.

After jurors had heard all the evidence presented to them by McCann, the defence team, and the numerous witnesses who’d known Dahmer in some capacity or been hired to assess him psychologically, Judge Laurence Gram issued a 14-page set of instructions to guide them on how to objectively judge the defendant.

Directly drawn from Gram’s instructions, the following excerpts are presented verbatim, with headings added for readability.

---

The Evidence • The Charges • Considering Dahmer’s Mental State

Reaching a Verdict • Disregards and Attorney Arguments

Weighing Witnesses • ⚖️

---

The Evidence

Members of the Jury:

The court will now instruct you upon the principles of law which you are to follow in considering the evidence and in reaching your verdict…

Take the law as it is given in the judge’s instructions and apply that law to the facts in the case which are properly proven by the evidence. Consider only the evidence received during this trial and the law as given to you by these instructions and from these alone, guided by your soundest reason and best judgment, reach your verdict.

Evidence is:

• The sworn testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness.
  
• The exhibits the court has received into the trial record.
  
• Any facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated, or which the court has directed you to find.

Anything you may have seen or heard outside the courtroom is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence offered and received at trial… Decide the issues of fact solely as you view the evidence.

You, the jury, are the sole judges of the facts, and the court is the judge of the law only.

[ back ]

The Charges

Count 1 of the information in this case charges that:

The defendant, Jeffrey L. Dahmer, in January of 1988, at 2357 South 57th Street, City of West Allis, County of Milwaukee, did cause the death of another human being, James E. Doxtator, with intent to kill that person contrary to Wisconsin Statutes section 940.01.²

….

Count 6³ of the information in this case charges that:

The defendant, Jeffrey L. Dahmer, on or about September 3, 1990, at 924 North 25th Street, City and County of Milwaukee, did cause the death of another human being, Ernest Miller, with intent to kill that person contrary to Wisconsin Statutes section 940.01(1).

….

Count 12 of the information in this case charges that:

The defendant, Jeffrey L. Dahmer, on or about June 30, 1991, at 924 North 25th Street, City and County of Milwaukee, did cause the death of another human being, Matt Turner a/k/a Donald Montrell, with intent to kill that person contrary to Wisconsin Statutes section 940.01(1).

….

Count 15 of the information in this case charges that:

The defendant, Jeffrey L. Dahmer, on or about July 19, 1991, at 924 North 25th Street, City and County of Milwaukee, did cause the death of another human being, Joseph Bradehoft, with intent to kill that person contrary to Wisconsin Statutes section 940.01(1).

The defendant, Jeffrey Dahmer, has been found guilty of every count in the information.

[ back ]

Considering Dahmer’s Mental State

You have just heard testimony about the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offenses. You will now be asked to determine whether the defendant is responsible for his criminal conduct.

Before you may find that the defendant is not responsible for his criminal conduct, the defendant must satisfy you to a reasonable certainty, by the greater weight of the credible evidence, that at the time the crime was committed, he had a mental disease as a result of which he lacked substantial capacity either to
appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

This issue will be presented to you in the form of two questions.

The first question is:

At the time the crime was committed, did the defendant have a mental disease?

If you answer the first question “yes,” you will be asked to answer the second question, which is:

As a result of the mental disease, did the defendant lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law?

Mental disease is an abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes.

You are not bound by medical labels, definitions, or conclusions as to what is or is not a mental disease.

You should not find that a person is suffering from a mental disease merely because he may have committed a criminal act, or because of the unnaturalness or enormity of such act, or because a motive for such act may be lacking.

Temporary passion or frenzy prompted by revenge, hatred, jealousy, envy, or the like does not constitute a mental disease.

An abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct does not constitute a mental disease.

A voluntarily induced state of intoxication by drugs or alcohol, or both, does not constitute a mental disease.

A temporary mental state which is brought into existence by the voluntary taking of drugs or alcohol does not constitute a mental disease.

Chronic use of drugs or alcohol may produce a condition that can constitute a mental disease if the condition has become permanent.

If you are satisfied to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence that the defendant had a mental disease at the time the offense was committed, you must answer the first question “yes” and go on to answer the second question. If you are not so satisfied, you should answer the first question “no,” and you need not consider the second question.

Before you may answer this [second] question “yes,” you must be satisfied that the defendant’s mental disease caused a substantial impairment in his capacity to understand that what he was doing was wrong or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

If you are satisfied to a reasonable certainty by the greater weight of the credible evidence that, as a result of a mental disease at the time the offense was committed, the defendant lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, you must answer the second question “yes.” If you are not satisfied, you should answer the question “no.”

If you answer both of these questions “yes,” the defendant will be found to be not responsible for the offense, and he will be committed to the Department of Health and Social Services and will be placed in an appropriate institution unless the court determines that the defendant would not pose a danger to himself or to others if released under conditions ordered by the court.

In deciding whether the defendant is responsible for the criminal conduct, you are to consider only the issue of the defendant’s mental condition at the time the offense was committed.

[ back ]

Reaching a Verdict

Agreement by ten or more jurors is sufficient to become the verdict of the jury.

Jurors have a duty to consult with one another and to deliberate for the purpose of reaching agreement… At least the same ten jurors should concur in all the answers made on each verdict. I ask you to be unanimous if you can.

[ back ]

Disregards and Attorney Arguments

Disregard entirely any question that the court did not allow to be answered. Do not guess what the witness’ answer to such question might have been…

During the trial, the court has ordered certain testimony to be stricken. Disregard all stricken testimony.

Remarks of the attorneys are not evidence. If the remarks implied the existence of certain facts not in evidence, disregard any such implication and draw no inference from the remarks.

Consider carefully the closing arguments of the attorneys, but their arguments and conclusions and opinions are not evidence. Draw your own conclusions and your own inferences from the
evidence, and decide upon your verdict according to the evidence, under the instructions given you by the court.

The district attorney and the attorney for the defendant have stipulated or agreed to the existence of certain facts, and you must accept these facts as conclusively proved.

[ back ]

Weighing Witnesses

The weight of evidence is not to be decided merely according to the number of witnesses on each side.

You may find that the testimony of one witness is entitled to greater weight than that of another witness, or even of several other witnesses, and you may give it such weight in considering your verdict.

In weighing the evidence, you may take into account matters of your common knowledge and your observations and experience in the affairs of life.

The general rule is that witnesses may testify only to facts they know. A witness, however, who has special knowledge, experience, skill, training, or education in a particular profession or occupation is permitted to give an opinion as an expert in the field.

In determining the weight to be given to the opinion of an expert, you should consider the qualifications and credibility of the expert, whether the opinion is based upon established facts or agreed facts in the case, and the reasons given for the opinion. Such evidence is received for the purpose of aiding you in arriving at a conclusion, if it does aid you.

You are not bound by the opinion of any expert. You should consider carefully the opinion evidence with all the other evidence in the case, giving to it just such weight as you decide it is entitled to receive.

In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of expert witnesses, you should weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the relative qualifications and credibility of the expert witnesses, as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts and other matters upon which it was based…

Each party has had the privilege of calling other experts at the trial.

During the trial, an expert witness was told to assume certain facts and asked for an opinion based upon that assumption. This is called a hypothetical question. Consider the opinion only if you believe the assumed facts upon which it is based. If you find that the facts stated in the hypothetical question have not been proved, then the opinion based on those facts is not to be given any weight.

The general rule is that witnesses may testify only to facts known to them. There are exceptions to this rule, and in this case several witnesses were allowed to give an opinion as to Jeffrey Dahmer’s mental condition at the time they had contact with him. In determining the weight to be given to this opinion, you should consider the witness’ opportunity to observe what happened and the extent to which the opinion is based on that observation. The opinion is received for the purpose of aiding you in arriving at a conclusion, if it does aid you. You are not bound by the opinion of any witness. You should consider carefully the opinion evidence with all the other evidence in the case, giving to it just such weight as you decide it is entitled to receive.

Attorneys for each side have the right and the duty to object to what they consider are improper questions asked of witnesses, and to the admission of other evidence which they believe is not properly admissible. No adverse inference is to be drawn from any such objection. By allowing testimony or other evidence to be received over the objection of counsel, the court is not indicating any opinion as to the weight of the evidence. You jurors are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.

It is the duty of the jury to scrutinize and weigh the testimony of witnesses and to determine the effect of the evidence as a whole. You are the sole judges of the credibility of the several witnesses and of the weight and credit to be given to their testimony.

In determining the weight and credit you should give to the testimony of each witness, you should consider their interest or lack of interest in the result of this trial, their conduct, appearance and demeanor on the witness stand, their bias or prejudice (if any has been shown), the clearness or lack of clearness of their recollections, their opportunity for observing and knowing the matters and things testified to by them, and the reasonableness of their testimony.

You should also take into consideration the apparent intelligence of each witness, the possible motives for falsifying, and all other facts and circumstances appearing on the trial which tend either to support or to discredit their testimony, and then give to the testimony of each witness such weight and credit as you believe it fairly entitled to receive.

[ back ]

⚖️

Now, members of the jury, this case is ready to be submitted to you for your serious deliberation.

You will consider the case fairly, honestly, impartially, and in the light of reason and common sense.

Give each question in the verdict your careful and conscientious consideration. In answering each question, free your minds of all feelings of sympathy, bias, or prejudice.

Let your verdict speak the truth, whatever the truth may be.

[ back ]

---

Sources: The Sheboygan Press, official case documents, Justia

Footnotes:

1. “His pathological sexual needs certainly explains his motivation for engaging in these offenses, but they did not appear to cause him to “lack substantial capacity” for non-responsibility purposes,” noted Dr. Frederick Fosdal – who’d assessed Dahmer on behalf of the prosecution. “He admitted that he was fully aware of the illegaility, impropriety, and “wrongful-ness” of his behavior, and that he lived in “horror” of being discovered. He described various steps and behaviors that he engaged in and from which the inference can be made that he appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct.” Similar points were made by the three other doctors who’d argued that Dahmer was not insane under Wisconsin law ↩︎
2. First-degree intentional homicide ↩︎
3. Each of the fifteen counts Dahmer was charged for in Wisconsin was listed for the jurors in full ↩︎