IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 04-0058

vs.

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

JOEL LEON BEAL,

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 documents and other things received as exhibits and any facts that have been stipulated, that is, formally agreed to by the parties.

         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 instructed that some evidence was received for a limited purpose only, and you must follow that instruction.


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Government Exhibit 28, a chart purporting to show the ingredients and process necessary to manufacture methamphetamine, was used in court to illustrate a witness’s testimony. This exhibit was used in court for convenience. It does not in itself constitute evidence or proof of any facts. Therefore it will not be available to you in the jury room during deliberations. If the chart does not correctly reflect the facts shown by the evidence in the case, you should disregard Exhibit 28 and determine the facts from the other underlying 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’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 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’s present testimony.You have heard evidence that certain witnesses could each receive a reduced sentence in a criminal case in return for their cooperation with the prosecution in this case. These witnesses entered into agreements with the U.S. Attorney’s Office providing that if the witness gives substantial assistance to the government in its investigation of crimes, the prosecutor could file a motion for a reduction of his sentence. 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 these witnesses such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not their testimony may have been influenced by their hope of receiving reduced sentences is for you to decide.

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You have heard evidence that certain witnesses were once convicted of a crime. You may use that evidence to help you decide whether to believe these witnesses and how much weight to give their testimony.

 


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 a certain category of evidence called “similar acts” evidence. Here, you have heard evidence that the defendant was involved in methamphetamine manufacturing, distribution, and use at times other than those charged in the Indictment. You may not use this “similar acts” evidence to decide whether the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crime charged in the Indictment. In order to consider “similar 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 crime charged in the Indictment. If you make that finding, then you may consider the “similar acts” evidence to decide the defendant’s intent and knowledge. “Similar 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 of proof 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 a similar act or acts in the past, 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 in the past. The defendant is on trial only for the crime charged, and you may consider the evidence of “similar acts” only on the issue of the defendant’s intent and knowledge.


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

 

         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 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

 

         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

 

         Count 1 of the Indictment charges that on or about May 6, 2004 (after having previously been convicted of one prior drug felony), the defendant did knowingly and intentionally manufacture and attempt to manufacture a mixture or substance containing 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance.

         The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the crime charged in Count 1.

         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 a crime charged.

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

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         Count 1 of the Indictment charges that on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant knowingly and intentionally manufactured, or attempted to manufacture methamphetamine, a Schedule II Controlled Substance. The defendant may be found guilty of this “manufacturing” offense under one of the two following alternatives: (1) committing the offense as to more than 50 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; or (2) attempting to commit the offense as to more than 50 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

First Alternative: Manufacturing 50 Grams or More of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

 

         For you to find the defendant guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the three following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

           One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant manufactured actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

           Two,    the defendant knew that he was, or intended to be manufacturing a controlled substance; and

 

           Three,  the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of manufacturing 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of manufacturing 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

Second Alternative: Attempting to Manufacture 50 Grams or More of

Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

         The defendant may be found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if he attempts, but does not succeed, in manufacturing methamphetamine. For you to find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the four following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

         One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant intended to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

         Two,    the defendant knew the material he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance, e.g., methamphetamine;

 

         Three,  the defendant voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act which was a substantial step toward the manufacture of methamphetamine; and

 

         Four,    the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of attempting to manufacture 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine and proceed to consider whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the lesser included offenses of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture some amount of actual (pure) methamphetamine as described in Instruction ______.



INSTRUCTION NUMBER


         If you find the defendant not guilty of both manufacturing and attempting to manufacture 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, then you must consider whether the defendant manufactured or attempted to manufacture some amount of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

         The defendant may be found guilty of this lesser included offense under one of the four following alternatives: (1) committing the offense as to at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; (2) attempting to commit the offense as to at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; (3) committing the offense as to less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; or (4) attempting to commit the offense as to less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

First Alternative: Manufacturing at Least 5 Grams of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

         For you to find the defendant guilty of manufacturing at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the three following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

           One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant manufactured actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

           Two,    the defendant knew that he was, or intended to be manufacturing a controlled substance; and

 

           Three,  the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

 

(CONTINUED)


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of manufacturing at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of manufacturing at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

Second Alternative: Attempting to Manufacture at Least 5 Grams of

Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

         The defendant may be found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if he attempts, but does not succeed, in manufacturing methamphetamine. For you to find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the four following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

         One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant intended to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

         Two,    the defendant knew the material he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance, e.g., methamphetamine;

 

         Three,  the defendant voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act which was a substantial step toward the manufacture of methamphetamine; and

 

         Four,    the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

(CONTINUED)

 

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

Third Alternative: Manufacturing Less than 5 Grams of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

 

         For you to find the defendant guilty of manufacturing less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the three following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

           One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant manufactured actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

           Two,    the defendant knew that he was, or intended to be manufacturing a controlled substance; and

 

           Three,  the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of manufacturing less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of manufacturing of less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

Fourth Alternative: Attempting to Manufacture Less than 5 Grams of

Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

         The defendant may be found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, even if he attempts, but does not succeed, in manufacturing methamphetamine. For you to find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine, the government must prove each of the four following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

         One,     on or about May 6, 2004, the defendant intended to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine;

 

         Two,    the defendant knew the material he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance, e.g., methamphetamine;

(CONTINUED)



INSTRUCTION NUMBER (Cont’d.)

 

         Three,  the defendant voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act which was a substantial step toward the manufacture of methamphetamine; and

 

         Four,    the amount involved in the offense was a mixture or substance containing less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

 

If all of these essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine; otherwise you must find the defendant not guilty of attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine.

         If you find the defendant guilty of one of the alternative lesser included offenses, you will be asked to make a determination of the amount of actual (pure) methamphetamine the defendant manufactured or attempted to manufacture.

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER _____

 

         You are instructed as a matter of law that methamphetamine is a Schedule II Controlled Substance. You must ascertain whether or not the substances in question in this case were methamphetamine. In so doing, you may consider all the evidence in the case which may aid in the determination of that issue.

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER _____

 

         For your information, 1 gram is equivalent to 1000 milligrams. There are 28.35 grams in one ounce.

 

 


INSTRUCTION NUMBER

 

         You will note the Indictment charges that the offense was committed “on or about” a certain date. 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 the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful. You may consider the evidence of the defendant’s acts and words, along with all other evidence, in deciding whether the 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 the 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

 

         As part of the Verdict Form there are three interrogatories, or questions for you to answer.

         If you find the defendant guilty of a crime, that is, all of the essential elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you must then go on to answer the three interrogatories. You may answer each interrogatory “yes” only if you determine that the government has proved the act or circumstance in the interrogatory beyond a reasonable doubt. Your answer to each interrogatory must be agreed to by all twelve jurors.

 


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 you find the defendant 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 the Verdict Form. A Verdict Form is simply a written notice of a decision that you reach in this case. The answers to the Verdict Form and to the Interrogatories must be the unanimous decision of the jury.

         You will take the Verdict Form and the Interrogatories to the jury room, and when you have completed your deliberations and each of you has agreed on an answer to the Verdict Form, 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

CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 04-0058

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 1

JOEL LEON BEAL,

Defendant.

____________________

 

Part A. Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture 50 Grams or More of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

         We, the Jury, find the defendant, Joel Leon Beal, _____________ of the crime Guilty/Not Guilty 

of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture 50 grams or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine on or about May 6, 2004, as charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.

 

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE

 

Note: If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal guilty of Count 1, have your foreperson write “guilty” in the above blank space, and sign and date this Verdict Form. Proceed to Interrogatory Number 1.

 

(CONTINUE)

 


If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal not guilty of Count 1, have your foreperson write “not guilty” in the above blank space. You must then consider whether Joel Leon Beal is guilty of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine a lesser included offense in Part B.

 

(CONTINUE)

 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 04-0058

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 1

JOEL LEON BEAL,

Defendant.

____________________

 

Part B. Lesser Included Offense–Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture at Least 5 Grams of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

          We, the Jury, find the defendant, Joel Leon Beal, _____________ of the Guilty/Not Guilty

crime of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine on or about May 6, 2004.

 

 

_______________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

_______________________________DATE

 

(CONTINUE)

 


DRUG QUANTITY DETERMINATION

          If you found Joel Leon Beal guilty of the lesser included offenses of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture at least 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine on or about May 6, 2004, place a checkmark next to the quantity of the actual (pure) methamphetamine for which you unanimously find the defendant manufactured or attempted to manufacture:

_____  at least 35 grams but less than 50 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 20 grams but less than 35 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 5 grams but less than 20 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

 

 

_______________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

_______________________________DATE

 

Note: If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal guilty of the above crime, have your foreperson write “guilty” in the above blank space, make the Drug Quantity Determination, and sign and date this Verdict Form. Proceed to Interrogatory Number 1.

 

If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal not guilty of the above crime, have your foreperson write “not guilty” in the above blank space. You must then consider whether Joel Leon Beal is guilty of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine a lesser included offense in Part C.

(CONTINUE)

 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 04-0058

vs.

VERDICT FORM - COUNT 1

JOEL LEON BEAL,

Defendant.

____________________

 

Part C. Lesser Included Offense–Manufacturing or Attempting to Manufacture Less than 5 Grams of Actual (Pure) Methamphetamine

          We, the Jury, find the defendant, Joel Leon Beal, _____________ of the  

                                                                                                            Guilty/Not Guilty

crime of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine on or about May 6, 2004.

 

 

_______________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

_______________________________

                                                             DATE

 

(CONTINUE)

 


DRUG QUANTITY DETERMINATION

          If you found Joel Leon Beal guilty of the lesser included offenses of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine on or about May 6, 2004, place a checkmark next to the quantity of the actual (pure) methamphetamine for which you unanimously find the defendant manufactured or attempted to manufacture:

_____  at least 4 grams but less than 5 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 3 grams but less than 4 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 2 grams but less than 3 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 1 gram but less than 2 grams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 500 milligrams but less than 1 gram of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  at least 250 milligrams but less than 500 milligrams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

_____  less than 250 milligrams of actual (pure) methamphetamine

 

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE

 

Note: If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal guilty of the above crime, have your foreperson write “guilty” in the above blank space, make the Drug Quantity Determination, and sign and date this Verdict Form. Proceed to Interrogatory Number 1.

 

If you unanimously find Joel Leon Beal not guilty of the above crime, have your foreperson write “not guilty” in the above blank space. Proceed no further.

(CONTINUE)

 

 


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 04-0058

vs.

INTERROGATORIES

JOEL LEON BEAL,

Defendant.

____________________

 

INTERROGATORY NUMBER 1

          If you found the defendant guilty of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine in any amount, do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt Joel Leon Beal was at least 18 years old on May 6, 2004?

                   ___________                      ___________

                           Yes                              No

 

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE

 

(CONTINUED)

 

 


INTERROGATORY NUMBER 2

          If you found the defendant guilty of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine in any amount, do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that Joel Leon Beal was previously convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in Poweshiek County, Iowa, District Court on November 26, 2001, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of time not to exceed 10 years?

                   ___________                      ___________

                           Yes                              No

 

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE

 

INTERROGATORY NUMBER 3

          If you found the defendant guilty of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture actual (pure) methamphetamine in any amount, do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that Joel Leon Beal was previously convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver in Marion County, Iowa, District Court on November 2, 2001, and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed 10 years?

                   ___________                      ___________

                           Yes                              No

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             FOREPERSON

 

                                                             __________________________________

                                                             DATE