O:\BATAILLO\JFB\Public\CASES\CRIMINAL\Becerra, Mary ... · Web viewWhenever the word...
Transcript of O:\BATAILLO\JFB\Public\CASES\CRIMINAL\Becerra, Mary ... · Web viewWhenever the word...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No: 8:06CR32)
Plaintiff, ))
vs. ) FINAL) JURY INSTRUCTIONS
MARY S. BECERRA, ))
Defendant. )
INSTRUCTION NO. 1
DUTY
It is your duty to decide from the evidence whether the defendant is guilty or not
guilty of the crimes charged. From the evidence, you will decide what the facts are. You
are entitled to consider the evidence in the light of your own observations and
experiences in life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or
conclusions from facts established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to
the law which I give you in these and other instructions. In that way, you will reach your
verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts, but you must follow the law stated in my
instructions whether you agree or disagree with the law stated in the instructions.
In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you
believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of a witness’s
testimony, or you may believe part of a witness’s testimony, or you may decide that you
do not believe any of a witness’s testimony.
In deciding what testimony to believe, you may consider a witness’s intelligence,
the witness’s opportunity to have seen or heard the things involved in the witness’s
testimony,
a witness’s memory, the motive a witness has for testifying a certain way, a witness’s
manner while testifying, whether a witness has said something different at an earlier
time, the general reasonableness of a witness’s testimony and the extent to which the
witness’s testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe.
Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law requires that your
verdict be just, that is, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense,
and the law stated in my instructions.
Anything that I may say or do during the trial must not be taken by you as an
indication of what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.
Finally, please remember that only the defendant, and not anyone else, is on trial
here, and the defendant is on trial only for the crime or crimes charged, and not for
anything else.
INSTRUCTION NO. 2
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
The law presumes that the defendant is innocent. The defendant has no burden
to prove that she is innocent. Hence, even though the defendant stands charged, the
trial begins with no evidence against her.
INSTRUCTION NO. 3
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY
Because the defendant is not required to prove her innocence, the defendant’s
decision to exercise her constitutional right not to testify cannot be considered by you or
discussed among jurors in arriving at your verdict.
INSTRUCTION NO. 4
BURDEN OF PROOF
The government carries the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each
essential element of the crimes charged against the defendant. A reasonable doubt is a
doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not the mere possibility of
innocence. A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable
person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of
such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act
upon it. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond
all possible doubt.
INSTRUCTION NO. 5
EVIDENCE; LIMITATIONS
You should understand that an indictment is simply an accusation. It is not
evidence of anything. The defendant has pled not guilty. The defendant is presumed to
be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The word “evidence” includes: the testimony of witnesses; documents and other
things received as exhibits; any facts that have been stipulated, that is, formally agreed
to by the parties; and any facts that have been judicially noticed, that is, facts which I say
you must accept as true.
The following things are not evidence:
1. Statements, arguments, questions and comments by lawyers are not evidence.
2. Objections are not evidence.
Lawyers have a right to object when they believe something is improper under the
rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the lawyer’s objection or by my
ruling on the objection. If I sustain an objection to a question, ignore the question. If I
overrule the objection, treat the answer like any other answer. Do not attempt to draw
any inference in favor of either side as the result of the objection.
3. Testimony that I strike from the record or tell you to disregard is not evidence.
You must not consider such information when reaching your verdict.
4. Anything you see or hear about this case outside the courtroom is not
evidence. You must disregard such information when reaching your verdict.
5. A particular item of evidence is sometimes received for a limited purpose. I
will tell you when that situation arises and will instruct you on the purpose for which the
evidence can and cannot be used.
6. Finally, you may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial
evidence.” You should not be concerned with those phrases, since the law makes no
distinction between the weight to be given to direct or to circumstantial evidence. You
should give all the evidence the weight and value which you believe that the evidence is
entitled to receive.
INSTRUCTION NO. 6
BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES
During this trial it may become necessary for me to talk with the lawyers outside
your hearing, either by having a bench conference while you are present in the
courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting,
counsel and I are working. The purpose of the conference is to decide how certain
evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence or to decide a particular procedure
to be followed in the case. The lawyers and I will do what we can to minimize the
number and length of these conferences.
INSTRUCTION NO. 7
NOTE-TAKING
If you wish, you may take notes to help you remember what witnesses said.
Notes may be helpful to you because at the end of the trial, you must make your
decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not have a written transcript
to consult, and it may not be practical for the court reporter to read back lengthy
testimony. Therefore, pay close attention to the testimony that is given.
If you do take notes, please keep your notes to yourself until you and the other
jurors go to the jury room to decide the case. Do not let note-taking distract you to the
point that you miss hearing other testimony from the witness.
During the trial, documents and other physical items may be received in
evidence. You will not be supplied with a list of exhibits which are received in evidence.
Therefore, you may wish to make notes about the exhibits, especially their description
and number, so that you can locate and refer to exhibits while you are deliberating.
When we take our recess each day for the lunch-time break and when we take
our recess each night, please take your notes to the jury room and leave your notes
there. The courtroom deputy will take custody of your notes and secure them.
No one will read your notes but you. Your notes will be destroyed after the trial is
over.
INSTRUCTION NO. 8
CONDUCT OF THE JURY
To insure fairness, you, as jurors, must obey the following rules:
1. Do not talk among yourselves about this case or about anyone involved with
this case until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your
verdict.
2. Do not talk with anyone else about this case or about anyone involved with it
until the trial has ended and you have been discharged as jurors.
3. During the course of this trial and when you are outside the courtroom, do not
listen to or allow anyone to tell you anything about this case. Do not allow anyone to talk
to you about anyone involved with this case until the trial has ended and I have accepted
your verdict. If anyone tries to talk to you about this case during the trial, please
promptly report the matter to me.
4. During the trial do not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or
witnesses involved in this case. Do not even pass the time of day with any of them. You
must not only do justice in this case, but you must also give the appearance of doing
justice. For instance, if a person from one side of the lawsuit sees you talking to a
person from the other side, even if it is on a matter unconnected with this trial or simply
to pass the time of day, such contact might arouse unwarranted suspicion about your
fairness. If a lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall,
ride the elevator, or encounter each other elsewhere while this trial is taking place,
remember that court rules prohibit those persons from talking or visiting with you as well.
5. You must decide this case on the basis of evidence presented in the
courtroom. Therefore, do not read any news stories or articles about the case or
about anyone
involved with this case. Do not listen to any radio or television reports about the case or
about anyone involved with it. Until the trial is over, avoid reading any newspapers and
avoid listening to any TV or radio newscasts. There may be news reports of this case,
and if there are, you might find yourself inadvertently reading or listening to something
before you realize what you are doing.
6. Do not do any research or make any investigation, on the internet or
otherwise, on your own concerning this case. Do not use or refer to any dictionary,
reference, or law book, or to the internet, concerning any aspect of this case, including
any evidence introduced. Do not visit the scene of any incident mentioned in this case.
7. Do not form any opinion regarding any fact or issue in the case until you have
received the entire evidence, have heard arguments of counsel, have been instructed as
to the law of the case, and have retired to the jury room. Do not make up your mind
during the trial about what the verdict should be. Keep an open mind until after you have
gone to the jury room to decide the case and have discussed the evidence with the
other jurors.
8. Do not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice. Do not indulge in any
speculation, guess, or conjecture. Do not make any inferences unless they are
supported by the evidence.
INSTRUCTION NO. 9
OUTLINE OF TRIAL
The trial will proceed in the following manner:
The government, through the Assistant United States Attorney, will make an
opening statement. The defendant’s attorney may, but does not have to, make an
opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence but is simply a summary of
what the attorney expects the evidence to be.
The government will then present its evidence, and counsel for the defendant
may cross-examine witnesses who have testified in the government's case. After the
government has presented its case, the defendant may, but does not have to, present
evidence, testify, or call witnesses. If a defendant calls witnesses, government counsel
may cross-examine those witnesses.
After presentation of evidence is completed, the attorneys will make their closing
arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening
statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will instruct you further on the law.
After that you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.
When you reach your verdict, we will return to the courtroom where your
foreperson will deliver the verdict to me. After the verdict is announced, one of the
lawyers may ask that the jury be polled, that is, that you each be asked individually
whether the verdict is your true verdict.
Once you have delivered your verdict, you will be discharged and will be free to
leave.
INSTRUCTION NO. 10
NATURE OF THE CASE; NATURE OF INDICTMENT
This is a criminal case brought by the United States of America against the
defendant, Mary S. Becerra, Case No. 8:06CR32. The parties to this criminal lawsuit
are the government, represented by Robert Sigler, and the defendant, Mary S. Becerra,
represented by F. Montgomery Brown. The charges against the defendant are set forth
in an indictment. You must understand that the indictment is simply an accusation. The
indictment is not evidence. In order to help you follow the evidence in this case, I will
now summarize the crimes charged in the indictment which the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Count I of the indictment charges that from an unknown date, but at least as
early as January 1, 2002, and continuing through August 15, 2003, Mary S. Becerra
knowingly and intentionally combined, conspired, confederated, and agreed with other
persons to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine and a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine.
A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement or mutual
understanding between two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The people
participating in the same conspiracy are called “co-conspirators.” The crime of
conspiracy is a separate and distinct offense from the crime or crimes contemplated by
the conspirators. For instance, conspiring to commit mail fraud would be a separate
and distinct crime from committing mail fraud.
The defendant has pled not guilty to the charges of the indictment. Because she
has pled not guilty, the law requires you to presume Ms. Becerra to be innocent. This
presumption of innocence may be overcome only if the government proves, beyond a
reasonable doubt, each element of the crimes charged against the defendant.
INSTRUCTION NO. 11
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS; SINGLE CONSPIRACY
The defendant is charged in Count I of the indictment with conspiracy to distribute
a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine and a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. The charge of
conspiracy, as alleged in Count I of the indictment, has four essential elements which
the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. From an unknown date, but at least as early as January 1, 2002, up to and
including August 15, 2003, two or more persons reached an agreement or
came to a mutual understanding to distribute or to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine and a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine;
2. The defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined in the agreement or
mutual understanding, either at the time it was first reached or at some
later time while the agreement or mutual understanding was still in effect;
3. At the time the defendant joined in the agreement or mutual
understanding, the defendant knew the purpose of the agreement or
mutual understanding was to distribute or to possess with intent to
distribute a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine and a
mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine; and
4. The amount of methamphetamine involved in the agreement or mutual
understanding that the defendant possessed with intent to distribute was
500
grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine
and a detectable amount of cocaine, as instructed in Instruction No. 12.
If you find the government has proved the first three essential elements of the
offense charged in Count I of the indictment, you must determine the quantity of
controlled substances attributable to the defendant, within the ranges specified on the
verdict form. The government must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. If the government
fails to prove any of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the
defendant not guilty of the conspiracy charge, even if you find that she was a member of
some other conspiracy. Proof that the defendant was a member of some other
conspiracy is not enough to convict.
INSTRUCTION NO. 12
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
QUANTITY
If you find the government has proved the first three essential elements of the
offense charged in Count I of the indictment, you must determine the quantity of
controlled substances attributable to the defendant, within the ranges specified on the
verdict form. The quantity of controlled substances involved in the agreement or
understanding includes the controlled substances the defendant possessed for personal
use, possessed with intent to distribute, distributed or agreed to distribute. The
quantity also includes the controlled substances fellow conspirators distributed or
agreed to distribute, if you find those distributions or agreements to distribute were a
necessary or natural consequence of the agreement or understanding and were
reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
To assist you in determining quantity, you are advised that the following weight
measurements are equivalent:
1 oz (ounce) = 28.35 gm (grams)
1lb (pound) = 453.6 gm (grams)
1 lb (pound) = 0.4536 kg (kilograms)
1 lb (pound) = 16 oz (ounces)
1 kg (kilogram) = 1,000 gm (grams)
1 gm (gram) = 1,000 mg (milligrams)
INSTRUCTION NO. 13
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
“AGREEMENT” EXPLAINED
Concerning the conspiracy charged in Count I of the indictment, the government,
by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, must prove that the defendant reached an
agreement or understanding with at least one other person. It makes no difference
whether that other person is named in the indictment.
The “agreement or understanding” need not be an express or formal agreement
or be in writing or cover all the details of how it is to be carried out. Nor is it necessary
that the members have directly stated between themselves the details or purpose of the
scheme.
You should understand that merely being present at the scene of an event, or
merely acting in the same way as others or merely associating with others, does not
prove that a person has joined in an agreement or understanding. A person who has no
knowledge of a conspiracy but who happens to act in a way which advances some
purpose of one does not thereby become a member.
But a person may join in an agreement or understanding, as required by this
element, without knowing all the details of the agreement or understanding, and without
knowing who all the other members are. Further, it is not necessary that a person agree
to play any particular part in carrying out the agreement or understanding. A person may
become a member of a conspiracy even if that person agrees to play only a minor part
of the conspiracy, as long as that person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of
the plan and voluntarily and intentionally joins in it.
You must decide, after considering all of the evidence, whether the conspiracy
alleged in Count I of the indictment existed. If you find that the alleged conspiracy did
exist, you must also decide whether the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined the
conspiracy, either at the time it was first formed or at some later time while it was still in
effect. In determining whether the alleged conspiracy existed, you may consider the
actions and statements of all the alleged participants. The agreement may be inferred
from all the circumstances and the conduct of the alleged participants. In making that
decision, you must consider only evidence of the defendant’s own actions and
statements. You may not consider actions and pretrial statements of others, except to
the extent that pretrial statements of others describe something that had been said or
done by the defendant.
INSTRUCTION NO. 14
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
“DISTRIBUTE” EXPLAINED
The term “distribute” as used in these instructions means the actual, constructive
or attempted delivery or transfer of a controlled substance to another person. “Transfer”
means to convey or remove from one place or one person to another; to pass or hand
over from one to another, especially to change over the possession or control of.
INSTRUCTION NO. 15
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
SUCCESS IMMATERIAL
It is not necessary for the government to prove that all the conspirators actually
succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.
INSTRUCTION NO. 16
COUNT I: CONSPIRACY
CO-CONSPIRATORS’ ACTS AND STATEMENTS
You may consider acts knowingly done and statements knowingly made by a
defendant’s co-conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of
the conspiracy as evidence pertaining to the defendant even though the acts and
statements were done or made in the absence of and without the knowledge of the
defendant. This includes acts done or statements made before the defendant had joined
the conspiracy, for a person who knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally joins an existing
conspiracy is responsible for all of the conduct of the co-conspirators from the beginning
of the conspiracy.
Acts and statements which are made before the conspiracy began or after it
ended are admissible only against the person making them and should not be
considered by you against any other person.
INSTRUCTION NO. 17
WIRETAP OR OTHER TAPE-RECORDED EVIDENCE
You are about to hear tape recordings of conversations. These conversations
were legally recorded, and you may consider the recordings just like any other evidence.
INSTRUCTION NO. 18
PROOF OF INTENT OR KNOWLEDGE
Intent or knowledge may be proved like anything else.
You may consider any statements made and acts done by the defendant and all
the facts and circumstances in evidence which may aid in a determination of the
knowledge or intent of the defendant.
You may, but are not required to, infer that a person intends the natural and
probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted.
INSTRUCTION NO. 19
POSSESSION DEFINED
The law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual
possession or constructive possession. A person may have sole or joint possession.
A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing, at a given time,
is then in actual possession of it.
A person who, although not in actual possession, has both the power and the
intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or
through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.
If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession
is sole. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of a thing,
possession is joint.
Whenever the word “possession” has been used in these instructions, it includes
actual as well as constructive possession and also sole as well as joint possession.
INSTRUCTION NO. 20
“ON OR ABOUT” EXPLAINED
The indictment charges that the offenses were committed “on or about” a certain
date or period of time. It is not necessary that the proof establish with certainty the exact
date of the alleged offenses. It is sufficient if the evidence shows beyond a reasonable
doubt that said offenses were committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged.
INSTRUCTION NO. 21
DUTY
It is your duty to decide from the evidence whether the defendant is guilty or not
guilty of the crime charged. From the evidence, you will decide what the facts are. You
are entitled to consider the evidence in the light of your own observations and
experiences in life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or
conclusions from facts established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to
the law which I give you in these and other instructions. In that way, you will reach your
verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts, but you must follow the law stated in my
instructions whether you agree or disagree with the law stated in the instructions.
In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you
believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of a witness’s
testimony, or you may believe part of a witness’s testimony, or you may decide that you
do not believe any of a witness’s testimony.
In deciding what testimony to believe, you may consider a witness’s intelligence,
the witness’s opportunity to have seen or heard the things involved in the witness’s
testimony, a witness’s memory, the motive a witness has for testifying a certain way, a
witness’s manner while testifying, whether a witness has said something different at an
earlier time, the general reasonableness of a witness’s testimony and the extent to
which the witness’s testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe.
Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law requires that your
verdict be just, that is, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense,
and the law stated in my instructions.
Anything that I may say or do during the trial must not be taken by you as an
indication of what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.
Finally, please remember that only the defendant, and not anyone else, is on trial
here, and the defendant is on trial only for the crime or crimes charged, and not for
anything else.
INSTRUCTION NO. 22
REASONABLE DOUBT
The law presumes a defendant to be innocent of a crime. Thus a defendant,
although accused, begins the trial with a “clean slate” – with no evidence against him or
her. And the law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be
considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of
innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial
consideration of all the evidence in the case.
It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The
test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and
common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act
in the most important of his or her affairs.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing
character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most
important of his or her own affairs.
The jury will remember that a defendant is never to be convicted on mere
suspicion or conjecture. The burden is always on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant; for the law never
imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any
witnesses or producing any evidence.
So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the
case, has a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a charge, it must acquit. If the
jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions --
one of innocence, the other of guilt -- the jury must, of course, adopt the conclusion of
innocence.
INSTRUCTION NO. 23
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES
In deciding what the facts are, you may have to decide what testimony you
believe and what testimony you do not believe. You may believe all of what a witness
said, or only part of it, or none of it.
In deciding what testimony to believe, consider the witness’s intelligence, the
opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the
witness’s memory, any motives that witness may have for testifying a certain way, the
manner of the witness while testifying, whether that witness said something different at
an earlier time, the general reasonableness of the testimony, and the extent to which
the testimony is consistent with any evidence that you believe.
In deciding whether or not to believe a witness, keep in mind that people
sometimes hear or see things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to
consider therefore whether a contradiction is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of
memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on whether it has to do with
an important fact or only a small detail.
INSTRUCTION NO. 24
CREDIBILITY OF COOPERATING WITNESSES
You have heard evidence that witnesses Cesar Esqueda, Korina Freemont, Mary
Silvey, Rita Natoli, and John Pedrosa hope to receive a reduced sentence in return for
their cooperation with the government in this case. Each entered into an agreement
with the United States Attorney’s Office which provides that in return for their assistance,
the government may dismiss certain charges, or may recommend a less severe
sentence, which could be less than the mandatory minimum sentence, for the crimes to
which the witness pleaded guilty. Cesar Esqueda, Korina Freemont, Mary Silvey, and
John Pedrosa are each subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, that is, a
sentence that the law provides must be of a certain minimum length. If the prosecutor
handling this witness’ case believes the witness provided substantial assistance, that
prosecutor can file a motion to reduce his or her sentence below the statutory minimum.
The judge has no power to reduce a sentence for substantial assistance unless
the government, acting through the United States Attorney, files such a motion. If
such a motion for reduction of sentence for substantial assistance is filed by the
government, then it is up to the judge to decide whether to reduce the sentence at all,
and if so, how much to reduce it.
You may give the testimony of this witness such weight as you think it deserves.
Whether or not testimony of a witness may have been influenced by his or her hope of
receiving a reduced sentence is for you to decide.
INSTRUCTION NO. 25
IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS:
PRIOR CONVICTIONS, PLEA AGREEMENTS, OR DRUG USE
You heard evidence that certain witnesses have been convicted of a felony, or a
crime of dishonesty, or a crime of giving false information. You should consider this
evidence, along with other pertinent evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe such
a witness and how much weight to give to the testimony of that witness.
You also heard testimony from certain witnesses who entered into non-
prosecution or plea agreements with the government. In evaluating the testimony of
such a witness you should consider whether that testimony may have been influenced
by the agreement with the government. Whether or not information or testimony given
by the witness may have been influenced by the possibility of receiving a reduced
sentence is for you to decide.
Finally, you heard testimony from persons who have abused drugs. In evaluating
the testimony of such a witness you should consider this evidence, along with other
pertinent evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe such a witness and how much
weight to give to the testimony of that witness.
INSTRUCTION NO. 26
NOTES
Some of you may have taken notes during the trial; others of you may have
chosen not to take notes. If you did take notes, remember that those notes are not
themselves evidence, but are instead merely memory aids. You must reach a verdict
based upon your independent recollection of the evidence presented during the trial, not
upon your notes or another juror’s notes. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight
than the recollection or impression of each juror as to what the testimony may have
been.
INSTRUCTION NO. 27
PREVIOUS TRIAL
You have heard that there was a previous trial of the defendant charged here.
Keep in mind, however, that you must decide this case solely on the evidence presented
to you in this trial. The fact of a previous trial must have no effect on your consideration
of this case.
INSTRUCTION NO. 28
OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSPIRACY
The grand jury charges that the defendant conspired to commit one or both of the
following separate offenses: 1) distribution of methamphetamine; and 2) distribution of
cocaine. The prosecution has to prove that the conspiracy had at least one of the
objectives alleged. You must unanimously agree on the offense alleged in the
indictment was proved to be the objective(s) of the conspiracy. If you cannot agree that
the defendant entered into a conspiracy to commit one or both of the objectives in the
conspiracy charged in Count I, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this
conspiracy charged in the indictment.
To assist you in determining whether there was an agreement to commit the
offenses alleged to be objectives of the conspiracy, you should consider the elements of
distribution of a controlled substance, which are the following:
1. A conspirator intentionally distributed controlled substances to another; and
2. At the time of the distribution, a conspirator knew that what he/she was
distributing was a controlled substance.
To find the defendant guilty of this “conspiracy” charge, you do not have to find
that all the offenses alleged to be an objective of the conspiracy were actually committed
by the defendant or anyone else. It is the agreement to commit such an offense that is
illegal; therefore, the illegal agreement is the conduct that has been charged in the
indictment, and it is the agreement that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to
establish the defendant’s guilt on this conspiracy charge.
INSTRUCTION NO. 29
ELECTION OF FOREPERSON; DUTY TO DELIBERATE
In conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules
you must follow. I shall list those rules for you now.
First, when you go to the jury room, you must select one of your members as your
foreperson. That person will preside over your discussions and speak for you here in
court.
Second, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury
room. You should try to reach agreement because a verdict - whether guilty or not guilty
- must be unanimous. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but
only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors,
and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions
if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision simply
because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict.
Third, if a defendant is found guilty, the sentence to be imposed is my
responsibility. You may not consider punishment in any way in deciding whether the
government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Fourth, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may
send a note to me through the U.S. Marshal or courtroom deputy, signed by one or more
jurors. I will respond as soon as possible either in writing or orally in open court.
Remember that you should not tell anyone - including me - how your votes stand
numerically.
Fifth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I
have given to you in my instructions. The verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be
unanimous. Nothing I have said or done is intended to suggest what your verdict should
be - that is entirely for you to decide.
Finally, the verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach
in this case. You will take the verdict form to the jury room, and when each of you has
agreed on verdicts for the defendant, your foreperson will fill in the form, sign and date it,
and advise the marshal or courtroom deputy that you are ready to return to the
courtroom.