IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN WATERLOO DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 03-2061

vs.

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

MUHAMMAD ANWAR,

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, the stipulations between the parties 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.

         Finally, you will be given an instruction that some evidence was received for a limited purpose only. You must follow that instruction.


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, the witness’ use of controlled substances during the events testified to, any motive the 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 Saqib Chudarry was once convicted of a crime. You may use that evidence only to help you decide whether to believe the witness and how much weight to give the witness’ testimony.

         You have heard evidence that Amy Gauthier and Amanda Reinier have each received a promise from the Government that they will not be prosecuted for their participation in marriage fraud or immigration violations. Their testimony was received in evidence and may be considered by you. You may give their testimony such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the witnesses’ testimony may have been influenced by the Government’s promise is for you to determine.

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         You have heard evidence that Saqib Chudarry has received a promise from the Government that he will not be prosecuted for his marriage fraud in exchange for testifying for the Government. His testimony was received in evidence and may be considered by you. You may give the witness’ testimony such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the witness’ information or testimony may have been influenced by such benefit is for you to determine.

         You have heard testimony from witnesses who stated that they participated in the crime charged against the defendant. Their testimony was received in evidence and may be considered by you. You may give the witnesses’ testimony such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the witnesses’ testimony may have been influenced by their desire to please the Government or to strike a good bargain with the Government about their own situations is for you to determine.

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         In this case, the defendant did not testify. No inference of guilt can be drawn from this. The defendant is not required to testify. The burden of proof remains upon the government to prove the guilt of the defendant.


 INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You have heard testimony from persons described as experts. Persons who, by knowledge, skill, training, education or experience, have become expert in some field may state their opinions on matters in that field and may also state the reasons for their opinion.

         Expert testimony should be considered just like any other testimony. You may accept or reject it, and give it as much as weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness’s education and experience, the soundness of the reasons given for the opinion, the acceptability of the methods used, and all the other evidence in the case.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER ______

 

         The Government and the Defendant have stipulated—that is, they have agreed—that certain facts are as counsel have stated. You must therefore treat those facts as having been proved.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER _____

 

         You have heard a certain category of evidence called “other acts” evidence. Here, you have heard evidence the defendant asked Mary Tucker, Keeley Hoyt Ali, Essie Cooper, Sherry Ali, Amy Gauthier and Kayleen Nazir to marry various foreign nationals for the purpose of assisting the foreign nationals obtain documentation to remain in the United States. You may not use this “other acts” evidence to decide whether the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crimes charged in the Indictment. In order to consider “other acts” evidence at all, you must first unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the rest of the evidence introduced, that the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crimes charged in the Indictment. If you make that finding, then you may consider the “other acts” evidence to decide Defendant’s intent. “Other acts” evidence must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, you must find that the evidence is more likely true than not true. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that this evidence is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you should give it the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive. If you find that it is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then you shall disregard such evidence.

         Remember, even if you find that the defendant may have committed similar acts, this is not evidence that he committed such acts in this case. You may not convict a person simply because you believe he may have committed similar acts. The defendant is on trial only for the crimes charged, and you may consider the evidence of other acts only on the issue of Defendant’s intent.


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 crimes:

         Under Count 1, the Indictment charges that between about 1993 and November 2003, the defendant did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree, with others known and unknown to the federal grand jury, to engage in marriage fraud.

         Under Count 2, the Indictment charges that on or about late 2002 and early 2003, the defendant did knowingly and unlawfully aid and abet the entry into marriage of a U.S. citizen and a foreign national for the purpose of evading a provision of the immigration laws. The defendant has pleaded not guilty to each of those 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 conspiracy to commit marriage fraud as charged in Count 1 of the Indictment has four essential elements, which are:

One, between about 1993 and November 2003, two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to enter into marriage for the purpose of evading a provision of the immigration laws;

 

Two, the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined in the agreement or understanding, either at the time it was first reached or at some later time while it was still in effect;

 

Three, at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of the agreement or understanding was to evade immigration laws; and

 

Four, while the agreement or understanding was in effect, a person or persons who had joined in the agreement knowingly did one or more of the following acts:


1. In about March 2000, in Karachi, Pakistan, Muhammad Anwar asked Amy Akhtar, a then-unmarried United States citizen to marry his nephew in Pakistan. Amy Akhtar went through with the marriage after knowing the nephew for a few hours.

 

2. Between about March 2000 and about November 2000, and after Amy Akhtar returned to the United States, defendant Muhammad Anwar repeatedly asked Amy Akhtar to complete the paperwork to allow Anwar’s nephew to enter and remain in the United States.

 

3. In late 2002 or early 2003, Muhammad Anwar did knowingly and unlawfully aid and abet the marriage of Amanda Reinier, a then-unmarried female and United States citizen, and Hamid Bashir for the purpose of allowing Hamid Bashir to remain in the United States and evade immigration laws.

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

4. Hamid Bashir and Amanda Reinier were married on or about February 13, 2003. The marriage was a for the purpose of allowing Hamid Bashir to evade immigration laws.

 

5. After February 13, 2003, Muhammad Anwar purchased or assisted in purchasing a vehicle for Amanda Reinier in exchange for her agreement to marry Hamid Bashir.

 

6. Shortly after the marriage on February 13, 2003, Muhammad Anwar, on a number of occasions, continually directed Amanda Reinier to complete the INS paperwork to allow Hamid Bashir to evade immigration laws.

 

7. In about October 2003, Muhammad Anwar strongly discouraged Amanda Reinier, then married to Hamid Bashir, from continuing with proceedings to having her marriage annulled. Muhammad Anwar suggested to her that an annulment, as opposed to a divorce, would interfere with Hamid Bashir’s ability to remain in the United States and continue to evade the effective enforcement of immigration laws.

 

for the purpose of carrying out or carrying forward the agreement or understanding.

         To assist you in determining whether there was an agreement or understanding to enter into marriage for the purpose of evading a provision of the immigration laws, you are advised that the elements of marriage fraud are listed in Instruction Number ___. Keep in mind that Count 1 of the Indictment charges a conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and not that marriage fraud was committed.

         If all of the essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant, then you must find the defendant guilty of the crime charged under Count 1; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime charged under Count 1.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         The Government must prove that defendant reached an agreement or understanding with at least one other person. It makes no difference whether that person is a defendant or named in the Indictment as long as you find beyond a reasonable doubt that there are other co-conspirators.

         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 purposes 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 in the conspiracy, as long as that person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of the plan and voluntarily and intentionally joins in it.

 

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         You must decide, after considering all of the evidence, whether the conspiracy alleged in Count 1 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 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 NUMBER

 

         It is not necessary that the act done in furtherance of the conspiracy be in itself unlawful. It may be perfectly innocent in itself.

         It is not necessary that the defendant have personally committed the act, known about it, or witnessed it. It makes no difference which of the conspirators did the act. This is because a conspiracy is a kind of “partnership” so that under the law each member is an agent or partner of every other member and each member is bound by or responsible for the acts of every other member done to further their scheme.

         It is not necessary that the Government prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that more than one act was done in furtherance of the conspiracy. It is sufficient if the Government proves beyond a reasonable doubt one such act; but in that event, in order to return a verdict of guilty, you must unanimously agree upon which act was done.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         It is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         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 it as evidence pertaining to the defendant even though they 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.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         The crime of marriage fraud as charged in Count 2 of the Indictment has three essential elements, which are:

         One, a person knowingly entered into a marriage;

 

Two, the marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws; and

 

         Three, the person knew or had reason to know of the relevant immigration laws.

 

         A person may be found guilty of marriage fraud even if he personally did not do every act constituting the offense charged if he aided and abetted the commission of marriage fraud.

         In order to have aided and abetted the commission of marriage fraud as charged in Count 2, the defendant must, before or at the time the crime was committed,

(1) have known that marriage fraud was being committed or going to be committed by Amanda Reinier and Hamid Bashir;

 

(2) have knowingly acted in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, and/or aiding the commission of marriage fraud between Amanda Reinier and Hamid Bashir;

 

(3) have known that the marriage between Amanda Reinier and Hamid Bashir was entered into for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws; and

 

         (4) have known or had reason to know of the relevant immigration laws.

 

         For you to find the defendant guilty of marriage fraud by reason of aiding and abetting as charged under Count 2, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of marriage fraud were committed by some person or persons and that the defendant aided and abetted the commission of that crime; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of the crime charged under Count 2.

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         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 become an aider and abettor. A person who has no knowledge that a crime is being committed or about to be committed, but who happens to act in a way which advances some offense, does not thereby become an aider and abettor.


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. You may consider the evidence of defendant’s out-of-court acts and words as testified to by the witnesses, 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 Forms are simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. The answers to the questions on the Verdict Form and your verdicts must be the unanimous decision of the jury.

         You will take the Verdict Forms to the jury room, and when you have completed your deliberations and each of you has agreed on an answer to each questions and to each verdict, your foreperson will fill out the Forms, sign and date them, 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 03-2061

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 1

MUHAMMAD ANWAR,

Defendant.

____________________

 

         We, the jury, make the following findings on the questions put to us regarding Count 1 of the Indictment:

         Question 1: We, the jury, find the defendant Muhammad Anwar, ____________ of

                                                                                                                                    Guilty/Not Guilty

the crime of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud between about 1993 and November 2003, as charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

(If your answer to Question 1 is “not guilty” do not answer any further questions on this form as to Count 1 and proceed to Verdict Form -Count 2. If your answer to Question 1 is “guilty” please proceed to Question 2).

 

         Question 2: Please place a check mark (√) before the name or names of the persons you unanimously find Defendant conspired with:

 

         ____  LeAnne Roof

         ____  Amanda Reinier

         ____  Amy Gauthier

         ____  Hamid Bashir

         ____  Amy Akhtar

(CONTINUED)

         Question 3: Please place a check mark (√) before the overt act or acts you unanimously find were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy:

 

         ____  a. In about March 2000, in Karachi, Pakistan, Muhammad Anwar asked Amy Akhtar, a then-unmarried United States citizen to marry his nephew in Pakistan. Amy Akhtar went through with the marriage after knowing the nephew for a few hours.

 

         ____  b. Between about March 2000 and about November 2000, and after Amy Akhtar returned to the United States, defendant Muhammad Anwar repeatedly asked Amy Akhtar to complete the paperwork to allow Anwar’s nephew to enter and remain in the United States.

 

         ____  c. In late 2002 or early 2003, Muhammad Anwar did knowingly and unlawfully aid and abet the marriage of Amanda Reinier, a then-unmarried female and United States citizen, and Hamid Bashir for the purpose of allowing Hamid Bashir to remain in the United States and evade immigration laws.

 

         ____  d. Hamid Bashir and Amanda Reinier were married on or about February 13, 2003. The marriage was a for the purpose of allowing Hamid Bashir to evade immigration laws.

 

         ____  e. After February 13, 2003, Muhammad Anwar purchased or assisted in purchasing a vehicle for Amanda Reinier in exchange for her agreement to marry Hamid Bashir.

(CONTINUED)

         ____  f. Shortly after the marriage on February 13, 2003, Muhammad Anwar, on a number of occasions, continually directed Amanda Reinier to complete the INS paperwork to allow Hamid Bashir to evade immigration laws.

 

         ____  g. In about October 2003, Muhammad Anwar strongly discouraged Amanda Reinier, then married to Hamid Bashir, from continuing with proceedings to having her marriage annulled. Muhammad Anwar suggested to her that an annulment, as opposed to a divorce, would interfere with Hamid Bashir’s ability to remain in the United States and continue to evade the effective enforcement of immigration laws.

 

 

                                                                 __________________________________

                                                                 FOREPERSON

 

                                                                 __________________________________

                                                                 DATE


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

EASTERN WATERLOO DIVISION

 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 03-2061

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 2

MUHAMMAD ANWAR,

Defendant.

____________________

 

 

         We, the jury, find the defendant, Muhammad Anwar, _____________ of the

Guilty/Not Guilty

crime of aiding and abetting the commission of marriage fraud on or about late 2002 and early 2003, as charged in Count 2 of the Indictment.

 

                                                                 __________________________________

                                                                 FOREPERSON

 

                                                                 __________________________________

                                                                 DATE