GOVT 346
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
v.
Jeffrey BING.
No. 00 CR- 01234567.
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
COUNTY OF COOK )
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SELF-DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Jeffrey Bing requests that this court give a jury instruction on self-defense in
his impending first-degree murder trial. Mr. Bing is charged with violating 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1)
by intentionally and knowingly shooting and killing John Geller with a gun. Mr. Bing claims that
his actions were justified because he reasonably felt that his life was in imminent danger from
Mr. Geller's persistent attacks and that the use of deadly force was necessary for his survival.
Illinois law recognizes the right to self-defense. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-1 permits the use
of deadly force to avoid imminent death or serious bodily harm to oneself or another. Mr. Bing
claims that his acts are fully within the scope of this statutory requirement. To ensure Mr. Bing
receives a fair trial, the jury must be properly informed about the legal principles governing self-
defense. Mr. Bing humbly seeks relief that this court grants his request for a jury instruction on
self-defense.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 2, 20XX, Mr. Bing was on a camping trip with his friends, Mr. Geller and Mr.
Newton. Senior Attorney Memo., at 1. During a day-long hike and only five minutes from the
Page 1 of 8
GOVT 346
lodge, the men decided to take a break. at 1. It was during this time that Mr. Geller discovered Id.
that Mr. Bing was seeing his former girlfriend after Mr. Newton questioned about Mr. Bing's trip
with Jill Jacoby. at 1. Mr. Geller became infuriated and proceeded to physically assault Id.
Mr. Bing, throwing him onto the ground and striking him in the face with his fists. at 1. Id.
According to Mr. Newton's police testimony, he had never seen Mr. Geller in this way and that
he "went berserk" upon learning about the information about Mr. Bing's trip with Mr. Geller's
former girlfriend. at 1.Id.
Mr. Bing apologized and made numerous attempts to defuse the situation, but Mr. Geller
refused to back down and continued his attack. ., at 1. During this attack, Senior Attorney Memo
Mr. Newton intervened and pulled Mr. Geller off of Mr. Bing, however, Mr. Geller drew out a
hunting knife and slashed Mr. Newton in the arm before charging at Bing again. at 1. Mr. Id.
Newton at this time stated, “Man, I’ve never seen him like this before. I’m going to run for
help.” at 1. According to the random facts, Mr. Bing is 5’11” and weighs 175 pounds and of Id.
no athletic build, while Mr. Geller was 6’ and 190 pounds at the time of his death and was of
athletic build and a track and field athlete. at 2.Id.
Mr. Bing, fearful for his life, pulled a firearm from his backpack and began waving it at
Mr. Geller to keep him at a distance. ., at 1. Despite Mr. Bing's pleas to Senior Attorney Memo
calm down and warning him that if he doesn't stop, he will shoot. at 1. Mr. Geller continued Id.
to threaten Mr. Bing, making statements such as, “ I’m going to kill you for this” and “that only
one of us is walking out alive.” at 2. With those threats, Mr. Geller charged at him, and when Id.
Mr. Geller got within 5 to 10 feet of Mr. Bing, Mr. Bing fatally shot him. at 2. On August 12, Id.
20XX, a Cook County Grand Jury indicted Jeffrey Bing for the first-degree murder of John
Geller. Indictment, No. 00 CR-01234561. Illinois v. Jeffrey Bing,
Page 2 of 8
GOVT 346
Mr. Bing claims that he had no intent to kill Mr. Geller, but he feared for his life. Senior
Attorney Memo., at 2).
ARGUMENT
I. THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE IN ILLINOIS.
A. Rule Explanation of 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-1.
The Illinois self-defense statute, 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-1, states that a person may use
deadly force if he reasonably believes it is necessary to defend against an imminent use of
unlawful force that threatens death or serious bodily harm. 720 Illinois Comp. Stat. 5/7-1. This
statute outlines the basic right to self-preservation, acknowledging that individuals may be forced
to take extreme measures in the face of a serious threat to their life or safety. These
standards take into account factors such as the severity of the threat, the imminence of danger,
and the availability of alternatives. Id.
B. Rule Application of the Relevance to Mr. Bing’s Case.
In Mr. Bing's (defendant) case, given the Statement of Facts, evidence suggests that
he truly believed that he was at imminent risk of death or serious harm and that using deadly
force was necessary to protect himself, and that 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-1 should be applied to
his case.
II. JUDICIAL OPINION ONE: ., 416 N.E. 2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981).People v. S.M
A. Rule Explanation of Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
In ., 416 N.E. 2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981), the court reviewed the case of People v. S.M
S.M., a 14-year-old boy who shot and murdered four individuals who pursued and threatened
Page 3 of 8
GOVT 346
him. . was initially in a parking lot when a station wagon almost hit him. ., 416 S.M People v. S.M
N.E. 2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981). Following an exchange of words, one of the occupants exited
the vehicle and pursued S.M. Three more joined the chase, cornering . against a fence. S.M Id.
S.M. fired a warning shot and attempted to run, but all four individuals persisted and attempted
to steal his firearm. then shot them. S.M. Id.
In the court ruled that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that . S.M., S.M
did not act in self-defense. The court reasoned that . had tried to avoid the conflict and Id. S.M
only used deadly force after attempting to flee and firing a warning shot. The court reasoned Id.
that 's fear of "immediate danger of death or great bodily harm" was reasonable given that heS.M.
was outnumbered, being followed by older and physically larger individuals. The case was
reversed and remanded. .'s case highlights the importance of evaluating all of the facts Id. S.M
when determining the reasonableness of a defendant's belief in the need to use deadly force. Id.
B. Rule Application of “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” Relevance to Mr. Bing’s Case.
Just as in the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bing People v. S.M.,
did not act in self-defense. Mr. Geller's persistent aggressive behavior, possession of a weapon,
and repeated threats, even after Mr. Bing attempts to de-escalate the situation, may lead a
reasonable person to fear they were in danger.
The jury must receive sufficient instruction on the State's burden of proof beyond
reasonable doubt and the elements of self-defense. They must carefully consider the evidence
and assess whether the State has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Bing did not act
in self-defense.
Page 4 of 8
GOVT 346
III: JUDICIAL OPINION TWO: , 210 Ill. App. 3d 379, 383, 569 N.E.2d 113,People v. Willis
116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991).
A. Rule Explanation of Exhausting Options.
Illinois law recognizes a "duty to retreat" in self-defense cases, meaning an individual
generally must attempt to retreat before resorting to deadly force if they can do so safely. This
principle is mentioned in , 210 Ill. App. 3d 379, 383, 569 N.E.2d 113, 116 (Ill.People v. Willis
App. Ct. 1991). In the case, the defendant, George Willis, stabbed and killed a man, LeeWillis
Cummings, during an altercation at a restaurant, their place of employment, over a dispute over
hours being reduced. While arguing self-defense, Mr. Willis admitted that he could haveId.
retreated from the altercation. The court held that his self-defense claim was invalid becauseId.
he had a safe opportunity to withdraw but chose to engage in the fight instead. The courtId.
emphasized that the duty to retreat reflects the high value placed on human life and encourages
the avoidance of unnecessary violence whenever possible. However, the court also clarifiedId,
that this duty does not apply if retreat is not feasible or would increase the danger to the
individual. The case was affirmed in part; vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing. Id. Id.
B. Rule Application of the Defendant’s Belief That All Options Were Exhausted in Mr. Bing’s
Case.
In Mr. Bing’s case, the jury will have to consider the scenario about the responsibility to
retreat if possible, as stated in . While acknowledging this principle, it is important to takeWillis
into account that Mr. Bing was not just a participant to a fight like in Willis. He was facing an
increasingly violent and aggressive situation that Mr. Geller had started. Mr. Geller's persistent
actions, physically attacking Mr. Bing, brandishing a hunting knife, and harming Mr. Newton,
Page 5 of 8
GOVT 346
created an environment of impending danger where retreat may not have been a possible or safe
alternative, despite Mr. Bing’s attempts to de-escalate the situation. The jury must be directed to
take into account all relevant factors, such as the location’s remoteness, Mr. Geller’s persistent
actions and threats, the possession of a weapon, and the increasingly intense nature of the
confrontation.
IV: JUDICIAL OPINION THREE: People v. Lynch, 198 Ill. App. 3d 896, 901, 556 N.E.2d 677,
681 (1990).
A. Rule Explanation of The ‘Aggresor’s’ Character.
In a self-defense case, evidence showing the victim's aggressive and violent character
could be included to prove the victim was the aggressor and help the jury determine if the
defendant's use of force was justified. , 198 Illinois App.3d 896, 901, 556 N.E.2dPeople v. Lynch
677, 681 (1990). Mr. Lynch was charged with murder after allegedly shooting a guy during a
struggle. According to the case, Mr. Bell, a neighbor, was very disgruntled with Mr. LynchId.
when Mr. Lynch's disabled son damaged Mr. Bell's car. . Mr. Bell demandedId
unreasonable payment for the damages, or he would kill Mr. Lynch's son. Mr. Bell's friend, Mr.
Howard, arrived shortly after and defended him aggressively. . Mr. Lynch, fearful for his andId
his son's lives, grabbed a revolver for protection. . About 15 minutes after the defendantId
arrived, Howard exclaimed, "I don't have to sit here and listen to this g____ b____ any further."
Id. The defendant said Howard lunged forward, grabbed behind his back and beneath his coat
with his right hand. Mr. Lynch believed Howard was going grab a weapon to shoot him. Id. Id.
Bell testified that Howard's hands were in front of him, but he admitted to the police shortly after
the incident that he had not seen Howard's hands. The defendant drew out his gun and firedId.
one shot at Howard. . The trial court withheld evidence of the victim's prior batteryId
Page 6 of 8
GOVT 346
convictions, but the appellate court determined that this was an error. The court reasoned that Id.
evidence of the victim's aggressive character could help determine who was the aggressor and
whether the defendant's fear of potential harm was justified. The case was reversed andId.
remanded. This type of evidence allows the jury to see the event through the defendant's eyesId.
while taking into account their knowledge of the victim's tendencies for violence.
B. Rule of Application of Mr. Geller’s Character In Mr. Bing’s Case.
People v. Lynch could be very advantageous to Mr. Bing's case because there is evidence
of Mr. Geller's aggressive and violent behavior at the time of the altercation. Mr. Newton's
statement that he had "never seen him [Mr. Geller] like this before. . ." and that he " went
berserk" could be taken as initial evidence of aggressive behavior. ., at 1.Senior Attorney Memo
Testimony from witnesses who knew Mr. Geller, such as his ex-girlfriend, Jill Jacoby, or
evidence of prior arrests or convictions for violent charges might be used to show that Mr. Bing's
fear of him was justified. supports the acceptance of such evidence, emphasizing itsLynch
significance in assisting the jury in understanding the defendant's perspective and the rationality
of their acts.
CONCLUSION
The evidence presented supports Mr. Bing's self-defense claim under Illinois law 720 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 5/7-1. Mr. Bing was subjected to a persistent and escalating attack by Mr. Geller
who exhibited relentless violent behavior, brandished a weapon, and harmed another individual,
Mr. Newton, during the attack while attempting to reach Mr. Bing. Mr. Bing attempted to de-
escalate the situation multiple times and only used deadly force when he reasonably feared his
life was in imminent danger. Therefore, Mr. Bing respectfully requests that the court allow his
Page 7 of 8
GOVT 346
Motion for Jury Instruction on Self-Defense. The jury should be thoroughly educated on the
legal principles concerning self-defense, including the "state's burden of proving beyond a
reasonable doubt . . . ", People v. S.M., 416 N.E. 2d 1212 (Ill. App. Ct. 1981), that Mr. Bing did
not act in self-defense. They must be instructed to evaluate all relevant factors, such as the
violent nature of Mr. Geller's attack, People v. Lynch, 198 Ill. App. 3d 896, 901, 556 N.E.2d
677, 681 (1990), and the practicality of retreating, People v. Willis, 210 Ill. App. 3d 379, 383,
569 N.E.2d 113, 116 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991), when considering the justification of Mr. Bing's
actions.
Page 8 of 8
