IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN WATERLOO DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 03-2035

vs.

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

REHMAT ALI,

Defendant.

____________________



         Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:

         The instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and during the trial remain in effect. I will now give you some additional instructions.

          You must, of course, continue to follow the instructions I gave you earlier, as well as those I give you now. You must not single out some instructions and ignore others, because all are important. This is true even though some of those I gave you at the beginning of and during trial are not repeated here.

         The instructions I am about to give you now are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. I emphasize, however, that this does not mean they are more important than my earlier instructions. Again, all instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         In considering these instructions, attach no importance or significance whatsoever to the order in which they are given.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Neither in these instructions nor in any ruling, action, or remark that I have made during this trial have I intended to give any opinion or suggestion as to what the facts are or what your verdict should be.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         It is your duty to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law, as I give it to you, to those facts. You must follow my instructions on the law, even if you thought the law was different or should be different.

         Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         I have mentioned the word “evidence.” The “evidence” in this case consists of the following: the testimony of the witnesses and the documents and other things received as exhibits.

         You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or conclusions from facts which have been established by the evidence in the case.

         Certain things are not evidence. I shall list those things again for you now:

         1. Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers are not evidence.

         2. Objections are not evidence. The parties have a right to object when they believe something is improper. You should not be influenced by the objection. If I sustained an objection to a question, you must ignore the question and must not try to guess what the answer might have been.

         3. Testimony that I struck from the record, or told you to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.

         4. Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom is not evidence.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         There are two types of evidence from which a jury may properly find the truth as to the facts of a case: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is the evidence of the witness to a fact or facts of which they have knowledge by means of their senses. The other is circumstantial evidence – the proof of a chain of circumstances pointing to the existence or nonexistence of certain facts. The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. You should give all evidence the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         The jurors are the sole judges of the weight and credibility of the testimony and the value to be given to each witness who has testified in this case. 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’ intelligence, the opportunity the witness had to have seen or heard the things testified about, the witness’ 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 NUMBER

 

         In the previous instruction, I instructed you generally on the credibility of witnesses. I now give you this further instruction on how the credibility of a witness can be “impeached” and how you are to consider the testimony of certain witnesses.

         A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence; by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; by showing the witness has a motive to be untruthful; or by evidence that at some other time the witness has said or done something, or has failed to say or do something, that is inconsistent with the witness’ present testimony.

         You have heard evidence that Misty Cook has been convicted of crimes. You may use that evidence only to help you decide whether to believe her and how much weight to give her testimony.

         You have heard that Misty Cook may receive benefits from the government in connection with her testimony and information in this case. The witness’ testimony was received in evidence and may be considered by you. You may give the testimony such weight as you feel it deserves. Whether or not a witness’ testimony may have been influenced by the benefit sought is for you to decide.

 

(CONTINUED)

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         You have heard evidence that Misty Cook hopes to receive a reduced sentence on criminal charges pending against her in return for her cooperation with the government in this case. She has entered into a “plea agreement” with the U.S. Attorney’s Office that provide that if she gives substantial assistance to the government in its investigation of crimes, the prosecutor could file a motion for a reduction of her sentence. If the prosecutor’s office handling the witness’ case believes she has given substantial assistance, the prosecutor can file in the court in which the charges are pending against her a motion to reduce her sentence. The judge has no power to reduce a sentence unless the prosecutor files such a motion. If such a motion for reduction of sentence for substantial assistance is filed by the prosecutor, 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 the witness such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the testimony of the witness may have been influenced by her hope of receiving a reduced sentence is for you to decide.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You have heard testimony that the defendant made statements to FBI Agent Craig Tomlinson. It is for you to decide: (1) whether the defendant made the statements; and (2) if so, how much weight you should give to them.

         In making these decisions you should consider all of the evidence, including the circumstances under which the statements may have been made.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You have heard tape recordings of conversations. These conversations were legally recorded, and you may consider the recordings just like any other evidence.

         Some of the tape recordings were accompanied by typed transcripts. The transcripts also undertook to identify the speakers engaged in the conversation. You were permitted to view the transcripts for the limited purpose of helping you follow the conversations as you listened to the tape recordings, and also to help you keep track of the speakers. The transcripts, however, are not evidence. A tape recording itself is the primary evidence of its own contents.

         You are specifically instructed that whether a transcript correctly or incorrectly reflects the conversation is entirely for you to decide based upon what you have heard here about the preparation of the transcripts and upon your own examination of the transcripts in relation to what you hear on the tape recording. If you decide that a transcript is in any respect incorrect or unreliable, you should disregard it to that extent.

         Differences in meaning between what you heard in the recordings and read in the transcripts may be caused by such things as the inflection of the speaker’s voice. You should, therefore, rely on what you heard rather than what you read when there is a difference. 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Exhibits have been admitted into evidence and are to be considered along with all the other evidence to assist you in reaching a verdict. You are not to tamper with the exhibits or their contents, and each exhibit should be returned into open court, along with your verdict, in the same condition as it was received by you.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         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 NUMBER

 

         The Indictment in this case charges the defendant with two separate crimes. Under Count 1, the Indictment charges that on or about November 27, 2001, the defendant committed the crime of knowingly and intentionally distributing pseudoephedrine, a List I chemical, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. Under Count 2, the Indictment charges that on or about December 13, 2001, the defendant committed the crime of knowingly and intentionally distributing pseudoephedrine, a List I chemical, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to each of the charges.

         As I told you at the beginning of the trial, an indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. To the contrary, the defendant is presumed to be innocent. Thus the defendant, even though charged, begins the trial with no evidence against him. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to find the defendant not guilty and can be overcome only if the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crimes charged.

         Keep in mind that each count charges a separate crime. You must consider each count separately, and return a separate verdict for each count.

           There is no burden upon the defendant to prove that he is innocent.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         The crime of knowingly and intentionally distributing pseudoephedrine, a List I chemical, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, as charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, has four essential elements which are:

One,on or about the date alleged [Count 1 - November 27, 2001; Count 2 - December 13, 2001], the defendant transferred pseudoephedrine to another person;

 

         Two,  the transfer was made with the knowledge that the substance was pseudoephedrine;

 

Three, the transfer was made intending or having reasonable cause to believe that the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine; and

 

         Four, the defendant was not entrapped by an informant of the United States, Misty Cook, to commit this crime.


         If all of the essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to the Count under consideration by you, then you must find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in the Count under consideration by you; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime charged in the Count under consideration by you.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         One of the issues in this case is whether the defendant was entrapped. If the defendant was entrapped, he must be found not guilty. The government has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped.

         If the defendant before contact with Misty Cook, a government informant, did not have any intent or disposition to commit the crime charged and was induced or persuaded by Misty Cook to commit the crime, then he was entrapped. On the other hand, if the defendant before contact with Misty Cook, a government informant, did have an intent or disposition to commit the crime charged, then he was not entrapped, even though Misty Cook provided a favorable opportunity to commit the crime or made committing the crime easier or even participated in acts essential to the crime.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER _____

 

         You are instructed as a matter of law that methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance. You are also instructed as a matter of law that pseudoephedrine is a List I chemical. You must ascertain whether or not the substances in question as to Counts 1 and 2 were pseudoephedrine. In so doing, you may consider all the evidence in the case which may aid in the determination of that issue.

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         The offenses charged in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment involve “distribution” of a pseudoephedrine. The following definitions of these terms apply in these instructions:

         The term “distribute” means to deliver a controlled substance to the possession of another person. The term “deliver” means the actual or attempted transfer of a controlled substance to the possession of another person. No consideration for the delivery need exist, and it is not necessary that money or anything of value change hands. The law is directed at the act of “distribution” of a controlled substance and does not concern itself with any need for a “sale” to occur.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You will note the Indictment charges that the offenses were committed “on or about” or “between about” certain dates. The government need not prove with certainty the exact date or the exact time period of an offense charged. It is sufficient if the evidence established that an offense occurred within a reasonable time of the date or period of time alleged by the Indictment.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         An act is done “knowingly” if the defendant realized what he was doing and did not act through ignorance, mistake or accident. The government is not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful. You may consider the evidence of defendant’s acts and words, along with all other evidence, in deciding whether defendant acted knowingly.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence. It rarely can be established by other means. While witnesses may see or hear and thus be able to give direct evidence of what a person does or fails to do, there can be no eyewitness account of the state of mind with which the acts were done or omitted. But what a defendant does or fails to do may indicate intent or lack of intent to commit an offense.

         You may consider it reasonable to draw the inference and find that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done, but you are not required to do so. As I have said, it is entirely up to you to decide what facts to find from the evidence.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Throughout the trial, you have been permitted to take notes. Your notes should be used only as memory aids, and you should not give your notes precedence over your independent recollection of the evidence.

         In any conflict between your notes, a fellow juror’s notes, and your memory, your memory must prevail. Remember that notes sometimes contain the mental impressions of the note taker and can be used only to help you recollect what the testimony was. At the conclusion of your deliberations, your notes should be left in the jury room for destruction.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         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 an agreement if you can do so without violence to individual judgment, 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 the 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.

 

 

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         Fourth, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the marshal or court security officer, 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.

         Finally, 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.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Attached to these instructions you will find two Verdict Forms. The Verdict Form is simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. The answer to each Verdict Form must be the unanimous decision of the jury.

         You will take these Verdict Forms to the jury room, and when you have completed your deliberations and each of you has agreed on an answer to each Verdict Form, your foreperson will fill out each Form, sign and date it, and advise the marshal or court security officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

         Finally, members of the jury, take this case and give it your most careful consideration, and then without fear or favor, prejudice or bias of any kind, return such verdict as accords with the evidence and these instructions.

 

 

 

 

 

__________                                       __________________________________

DATE                                               LINDA R. READE

                                                        JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN WATERLOO DIVISION

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 03-2035

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 1

REHMAT ALI,

Defendant.

____________________

 

         We, the Jury, find the defendant, Rehmat Ali,______________of the crime of Guilty/Not Guilty      

distributing pseudoephedrine on or about November 27, 2001, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine as charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE

 

 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN WATERLOO DIVISION

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 03-2035

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 2

REHMAT ALI,

Defendant.

____________________

 

          We, the Jury, find the defendant, Rehmat Ali,______________of the crime of Guilty/Not Guilty      

distributing pseudoephedrine on or about December 13, 2001, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine as charged in Count 2 of the Indictment.

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE