IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 02-3005-MWB

vs.


PRELIMINARY AND FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY

JOEL GERARD AMELING,

Defendant.

____________________



TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

NO. 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: PRELIMINARY

MATTERS

NO. 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 1:

CONSPIRACY

NO. 5 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 2: POSSESSION

WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE

NO. 6 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 3:

MANUFACTURING

NO. 7 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 4:

MAINTAINING A DRUG ESTABLISHMENT

NO. 8 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 5: DRUG USER

IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

 


NO. 9 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF: COUNT 6: POSSESSION

OF A FIREARM IN FURTHERANCE
OF A DRUG-TRAFFICKING OFFENSE

NO. 10 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

NO. 11 - REASONABLE DOUBT

NO. 12 - OUTLINE OF TRIAL

NO. 13 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

NO. 14 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

NO. 15 - BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

NO. 16 - OBJECTIONS

NO. 17 - NOTE-TAKING

NO. 18 - CONDUCT OF THE JURY

 

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

NO. 2 - “INTENT” AND “KNOWLEDGE”

NO. 3 - “POSSESSION,” “DISTRIBUTION,” AND “DELIVERY”

NO. 4 - COUNT 2: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO

DISTRIBUTE

NO. 5 - COUNT 3: MANUFACTURING “PURE”

METHAMPHETAMINE

NO. 6 - COUNT 4: MAINTAINING A DRUG

ESTABLISHMENT

NO. 7 - COUNT 5: DRUG USER IN POSSESSION OF A

FIREARM

NO. 8 - IMPEACHMENT

NO. 9 - FAILURE TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

NO. 10 - STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT AMELING

NO. 11 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND BURDEN OF

PROOF

NO. 12 - REASONABLE DOUBT

NO. 13 - DUTY TO DELIBERATE

NO. 14 - DUTY DURING DELIBERATIONS



VERDICT FORM


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY

INSTRUCTIONS

 

 

        Members of the jury, these preliminary instructions are given to help you better understand the trial and your role in it. Consider these instructions, together with all written and oral instructions given to you during or at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

 

 

        Your duty is to decide from the evidence whether the defendants are not guilty or guilty of the crimes charged against them. You will find the facts from the evidence. You are entitled to consider that evidence in light of your own observations and experiences. You may use reason and common sense to draw conclusions from facts that have been established by the evidence. You will then apply the law, which I will give you in my instructions, to the facts to reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts; but you must follow the law as stated in my instructions, whether you agree with it or not.

        Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law demands of you a just verdict, based solely on the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you. Do not take anything I may say or do during the trial as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be. Similarly, do not conclude from any ruling or other comment I may make that I have any opinions on how you should decide the case.

        Please remember that only defendants Joel Gerard Ameling and Tina Brown, not anyone else, are on trial here. Also, remember that each defendant is on trial only for the crime or crimes charged against him or her, not for anything else.

        You must give separate consideration to each defendant and to each charge against a particular defendant. Therefore, you must return a separate, unanimous verdict on each charge against each defendant.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

 

 

 

        To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a summary of the requirements for proof of the offenses charged in the indictment, beginning with some preliminary matters.

        Each offense charged in this case consists of “elements,” which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a defendant of that offense. I will summarize in the following instructions the elements of the offenses with which the defendants are charged.

        However, I must first explain that the indictment alleges that each offense was committed “during” a certain month or “on or about” a certain date. The prosecution does not have to prove with certainty the exact date of an offense charged. It is sufficient if the evidence establishes that an offense occurred within a reasonable time of the date alleged in the indictment.

        In this case, some of the charges involve “actual (‘pure’) methamphetamine” or “a methamphetamine mixture.” “Actual (‘pure’) methamphetamine” is the methamphetamine itself—that is, either by itself or contained in a mixture or substance. “A methamphetamine mixture” means a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of “actual (‘pure’) methamphetamine.”

        In these instructions, when I refer to a “controlled substance,” I mean any drug or narcotic the manufacture, possession, possession with intent to distribute, or distribution of which is prohibited or regulated by federal law. “Actual (‘pure’) methamphetamine” and “a methamphetamine mixture” are both “controlled substances.”

        Counts 1 (conspiracy) and 3 (manufacturing) allegedly involved specific quantities of actual “pure” methamphetamine. The prosecution does not have to prove that these offenses involved the amount or quantity of controlled substances charged in the indictment. However, if you find a defendant guilty of one of these offenses, then you must determine the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) whether the offense involved the controlled substance alleged in the pertinent count of the indictment, and if so, (2) the total quantity, in grams, of the controlled substance involved in the offense for which the defendant can be held responsible. In making your determination of quantity as required, it may be helpful to remember that one pound is approximately equal to 453.6 grams, and that one ounce is approximately equal to 28.35 grams. You do not have to make a determination of the quantity of any methamphetamine mixture involved in Count 2 (possession with intent to distribute), even if you find defendant Ameling guilty of that offense.

        I will now give you more specific instructions about the offenses charged in the indictment. However, please remember that these instructions on the charged offenses provide only a preliminary outline of the requirements for proof of those offenses. At the end of the trial, I will give you final written instructions on these matters. Because the final written instructions are more detailed, you should rely on those final instructions, rather than these preliminary instructions, where there is a difference.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 1: CONSPIRACY

 

 

 

        Count 1 charges that, during September 2001, defendants Ameling and Brown conspired and agreed with each other and with other persons to commit either or both of the following offenses: (1) manufacturing 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine; and (2) possessing 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine with intent to distribute it.

        Elements

        For you to find a defendant guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to that defendant:

        One, during September 2001, two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to commit one or more of the offenses alleged to be objectives of the conspiracy;

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

        Three, at the time that the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he or she knew the purpose of the agreement or understanding.

        Objectives

        The indictment alleges that the conspirators agreed to commit two separate crimes or offenses: (1) manufacturing 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine; and (2) possessing 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine with intent to distribute it. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove a conspiracy to commit both offenses. Rather, it would be sufficient if the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, a conspiracy to commit one offense, either manufacturing or possession with intent to distribute. However, in order to return a verdict of guilty on the “conspiracy” offense, you must unanimously agree upon which offense or offenses were objectives of the conspiracy. If you cannot agree in that manner, then you must find the defendant not guilty of the “conspiracy” offense.

        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 those offenses. The elements of manufacturing a controlled substance are the following:

(1) a person manufactured a controlled substance; and

(2) the person knew that he or she was, or intended to be, manufacturing a controlled substance.

 

The elements of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute it are the following:

(1) a person was in possession of methamphetamine;

(2) the person knew that he or she was, or intended to be, in possession of a controlled substance; and

(3) the person intended to distribute some or all of a controlled substance to another person.

 

        To find a defendant guilty of the “conspiracy” charge, you do not have to find that either of the offenses alleged to be objectives of the conspiracy was actually committed by that 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 to establish a defendant’s guilt on the conspiracy charge. If there was no agreement, there was no conspiracy. Similarly, if you find that there was an agreement, but you find that a particular defendant did not join in that agreement, or did not know the purpose of the agreement, you cannot find that defendant guilty of the conspiracy charge.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 2: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE

 

 

 

        Count 2 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and intentionally possessed approximately 8 grams of a methamphetamine mixture with intent to distribute it. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling was in possession of a methamphetamine mixture;

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that he was, or intended to be, in possession of a controlled substance; and

        Three, defendant Ameling intended to distribute some or all of the controlled substance to another person.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 3: MANUFACTURING

 

 

 

        Count 3 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and intentionally manufactured or attempted to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine. Defendant Ameling may be found guilty of this “manufacturing” offense under either or both of the following alternatives: personally committing the offense or personally attempting to commit the offense. I will explain the elements of each of these alternatives in turn.

        First alternative: Personally manufacturing methamphetamine

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine under this “personal commission” alternative, the prosecution must prove both of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling manufactured actual (“pure”) methamphetamine; and

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that he was, or intended to be, manufacturing a controlled substance.

        Second alternative: Attempting to manufacture methamphetamine

        Defendant Ameling may be found guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, even if he only attempted, but did not succeed, in manufacturing that controlled substance. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine under this “attempt” alternative, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling intended to manufacture a controlled substance;

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that the material that he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance; and

        Three, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act that was a substantial step toward manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 4: MAINTAINING A DRUG ESTABLISHMENT

 

 

 

        Count 4 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and unlawfully opened or maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using a controlled substance, specifically, methamphetamine. The prosecution identifies the “place” or “drug establishment” as 1321 255th Avenue, Fort Atkinson, Iowa. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove both of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling knowingly opened or maintained 1321 255th Avenue, Fort Atkinson, Iowa; and

        Two, defendant Ameling did so for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, methamphetamine.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 5: DRUG USER IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

 

 

 

        Count 5 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling, then being an unlawful user of methamphetamine, knowingly possessed one or more firearms in and affecting commerce. In this count, the Grand Jury charges that defendant Ameling possessed one or more of the following firearms:

        (a)    a Ruger M77, 220 rifle, serial number 772-18690

        (b)    a Remington, model 1100, 20 gauge shotgun, serial number M328158X

        (c)    a Marlin, model 60, .22 caliber rifle, serial number 06110842

        (d)    a Ruger M77, 22-250 rifle, serial number 782-60631

        (e)    a Ruger M77 rifle, serial number 772-84625

        (f)     a Ruger M77, 338 rifle, serial number 771-59164

        (g)    a Mossberg, model 500, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number J274970

        (h)    a Ruger, model 22-250 rifle, serial number 132-90232

        (i)     a Remington, model 870, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number C425470M

        (j)     a Winchester, model 1200, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number L1275945

        (k)    a Llama, 9mm pistol, serial number B29257

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling knowingly possessed one or more firearms;

        Two, during the time that defendant Ameling possessed the firearm, he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance; and

        Three, at some time during or before defendant Ameling’s possession of the firearm, the firearm was transported across a state line.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - REQUIREMENTS FOR PROOF:

COUNT 6: POSSESSION OF A FIREARM IN FURTHERANCE

OF A DRUG-TRAFFICKING OFFENSE

 

 

 

        Count 6 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling possessed one or more firearms in furtherance of one or more of the drug-trafficking offenses charged in Counts 1 (conspiracy), 3 (manufacturing methamphetamine), and 4 (maintaining a drug establishment). In this count, the Grand Jury charges that defendant Ameling possessed one or more of the following firearms:

        (a)    a Llama, 9mm pistol, serial number B29257, with 9mm ammunition

        (b)    a Ruger, M77, 220 rifle, serial number 772-18690

        (c)    a Winchester, model 1200, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number L1275945

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove both of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling committed at least one of the drug-trafficking offenses charged in Counts 1, 3, and 4;

        Two, defendant Ameling knowingly possessed one or more of the firearms specified in furtherance of the commission of that crime or those crimes.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - PRESUMPTION

OF INNOCENCE

 

 

        The charges against the defendants are set out in an indictment. As I explained during jury selection, an indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. Defendants Joel Gerard Ameling and Tina Brown have each pled not guilty to the charge or charges brought against them; therefore, each is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of innocence requires you to put aside all suspicion that might arise from the arrest or charge of the defendants or the fact that they are here in court. The presumption of innocence remains with the defendants throughout the trial. That presumption alone is sufficient to find them not guilty. The presumption of innocence may be overcome as to a particular defendant only if the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of a crime charged against that defendant.

        The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to either defendant to prove his or her innocence, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. A defendant is not even obligated to produce any evidence by cross-examining the witnesses who are called to testify by the prosecution.

        Unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant has committed each and every essential element of an offense charged in the indictment against that defendant, you must find that defendant not guilty of that offense.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - REASONABLE DOUBT

 

 

        A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence produced by either the prosecution or the defense, keeping in mind that a defendant never has the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. It may also arise from the prosecution’s lack of evidence. 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 in the more serious and important transactions of life. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.

 


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - OUTLINE OF TRIAL

 

        The trial will proceed as follows:

        After these preliminary instructions, the prosecutor may make an opening statement. Next, the lawyer for each defendant may, but does not have to, make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence. It is simply a summary of what the lawyer expects the evidence to be.

        The prosecution will then present its evidence and call witnesses, and the lawyer for each defendant may, but has no obligation to, cross-examine. Following the prosecution’s case, each defendant may, but does not have to, present evidence and call witnesses. If a defendant calls witnesses, the prosecutor may cross-examine them.

        After the evidence is concluded, I will give you most of the final instructions. The lawyers will then make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will then give you the remaining final instructions on deliberations, and you will retire to deliberate on your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

 

        Evidence is:

        1.     Testimony.

        2.     Exhibits that I admit into evidence.

        3.     Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

        Evidence may be “direct” or “circumstantial.” The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct and circumstantial evidence. The weight to be given any evidence is for you to decide.

        A particular item of evidence is sometimes admitted only for a limited purpose, and not for any other purpose. I will tell you if that happens, and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used.

        The fact that an exhibit may be shown to you does not mean that you must rely on it more than you rely on other evidence.

        The following are not evidence:

        1.     Statements, arguments, questions, and comments by the lawyers.

        2.     Objections and rulings on objections.

        3.     Testimony I tell you to disregard.

        4.     Anything you saw or heard about this case outside the courtroom.

        The weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Also, the weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined merely by the number or volume of documents or exhibits. The weight of evidence depends upon its quality, which means how convincing it is, and not necessarily upon its quantity. For example, you may choose to believe the testimony of one witness, if you find that witness to be convincing, even if a number of other witnesses contradict his or her testimony. The quality and weight of the evidence are for you to decide.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - 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 says, 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 see or hear 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 witness’s drug or alcohol use or addiction, if any, 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 see or hear things differently and sometimes forget things. You need to consider, therefore, whether a contradiction results from an innocent misrecollection or sincere lapse of memory, or instead from an intentional falsehood or pretended lapse of memory.

        Ordinarily, witnesses may only testify to factual matters within their personal knowledge. However, you may hear evidence from persons described as experts. Persons may become qualified as experts in some field by knowledge, skill, training, education, or experience. Such experts may state their opinions on matters in that field and may also state the reasons for their opinions. You should consider expert testimony just like any other testimony. You may believe all of what an expert says, only part of it, or none of it, considering the expert’s qualifications, the soundness of the reasons given for the opinion, the acceptability of the methods used, any reason the expert may be biased, and all of the other evidence in the case.

        Finally, just because a witness works in law enforcement or is employed by the government does not mean you should give more weight or credence to such a witness’s testimony than you give to any other witness’s testimony.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 15 - BENCH

CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

 

 

 

        During the trial it may be necessary for me to talk with the lawyers out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a bench conference here while the jury is present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please be patient, because while you are waiting, we are working. The purpose of these conferences is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence, to avoid confusion and error, and to save your valuable time. We will, of course, do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a minimum.

 


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 16 - OBJECTIONS

 

        The lawyers may make objections and motions during the trial that I must rule upon. If I sustain an objection to a question before it is answered, do not draw any inferences or conclusions from the question itself. Also, the lawyers have a duty to object to testimony or other evidence that they believe is not properly admissible. Do not hold it against a lawyer or the party the lawyer represents because the lawyer has made objections.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 17 - NOTE-TAKING

 

        If you want to take notes during the trial, you may, but be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all the evidence. If you choose not to take notes, remember it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence.

        Notes you take during the trial are not necessarily more reliable than your memory or another juror’s memory. Therefore, you should not be overly influenced by the notes.

         If you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. At the end of each day, please leave your notes on your chair. At the end of the trial, you may take your notes out of the notebook and keep them, or leave them, and we will destroy them. No one will read the notes, either during or after the trial.

        You will notice that we have an official court reporter making a record of the trial. However, we will not have typewritten transcripts of this record available for your use in reaching your verdict.


PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 18 - CONDUCT OF THE JURY

 

        Finally, to insure fairness, you as jurors must obey the following rules:

        First, do not talk among yourselves about this case, or about anyone involved with it, until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.

        Second, 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.

        Third, when you are outside the courtroom do not let anyone tell you anything about the case, or about anyone involved with it until the trial has ended and your verdict has been accepted by me. If someone should try to talk to you about the case during the trial, please report it to me.

        Fourth, during the trial you should not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case—you should not even pass the time of day with any of them. It is important that you not only do justice in this case, but that you also give the appearance of doing justice. If a person from one side of the case sees you talking to a person from the other side—even if it is simply to pass the time of day—an unwarranted and unnecessary suspicion about your fairness might be aroused. If any lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator or the like, it is because they are not supposed to talk or visit with you.

        Fifth, do not read any news stories or articles about the case, or about anyone involved with it, or listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. If you want, you can have your spouse or a friend clip out any stories and set them aside to give you after the trial is over. I can assure you, however, that by the time you have heard the evidence in this case you will know more about the matter than anyone will learn through the news media.

        Sixth, do not do any research—on the Internet, in libraries, in the newspapers, or in any other way—or make any investigation about this case on your own. You must decide this case based on the evidence presented in court.

        Seventh, 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 you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

        Eighth, if at anytime during the trial you have a problem that you would like to bring to my attention, or if you feel ill or need to go to the restroom, please send a note to the Court Security Officer, who will deliver it to me. I want you to be comfortable, so please do not hesitate to inform me of any problem.

        DATED this 8th day of December, 2003.

                                                     mwbjustsig.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

 

        Members of the jury, the written instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and the oral instructions I gave you during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions.

        The instructions I am about to give you, as well as the preliminary instructions given to you at the beginning of the trial, are in writing and will be available to you in the jury room. All instructions, whenever given and whether in writing or not, must be followed. This is true even though some of the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial are not repeated here.

        At the beginning of trial, I told you that Tina Brown was a defendant in this case, charged with “conspiracy” in Count 1 of the indictment. However, the charge against Tina Brown has been disposed of, and she is no longer a defendant in this case. You should not guess about or concern yourselves with the reason for this disposition. You are not to consider this fact when deciding if the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, its case against defendant Ameling.

        Furthermore, at the beginning of trial, I told you that defendant Ameling was charged with six different offenses. However, since the trial started, the “conspiracy” charge against defendant Ameling in Count 1 of the indictment and the “possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense” against defendant Ameling in Count 6 of the indictment have also been disposed of. Therefore, those charges against defendant Ameling are no longer before you, and the only offenses with which defendant Ameling is now charged are the offenses in Counts 2 through 5 of the indictment. Again, you should not guess about or concern yourselves with the reason for this disposition. You are not to consider the fact that Counts 1 and 6 have been disposed of when deciding whether or not the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the remaining counts against defendant Ameling.

        I will now give you final instructions on the remaining counts against defendant Ameling.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - “INTENT” AND “KNOWLEDGE”

 

 

        “Intent” and “knowledge” are elements of the offenses charged in this case and, therefore, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. “Intent” and “knowledge” may be proved like anything else, although the defendant’s “intent” and “knowledge” are typically established through circumstantial evidence. Therefore, you may consider any statements made or acts done by the defendant, and all of the facts and circumstances in evidence, to aid you in the determination of the defendant’s knowledge or intent. An act is done “knowingly” if the defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. The prosecution is not required to prove that a defendant knew that his or her acts or omissions were unlawful.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - “POSSESSION,” “DISTRIBUTION,”

AND “DELIVERY”

 

 

        Various of the offenses charged involve “possession” of controlled substances or firearms, and “distribution,” and/or “delivery” of controlled substances, or intent to do those things. The following definitions of these terms apply in these instructions:

        The law recognizes several kinds of “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 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.

        In addition, mere presence where a thing was found or mere physical proximity to the thing is insufficient to establish “possession” of that thing. Knowledge of the presence of the thing, at the same time one has control over the thing or the place in which it was found, is required. Thus, in order to establish “possession” of a thing, the prosecution must establish that the following circumstances all existed at the same time: (a) the person had knowledge of the presence of the thing; (b) the person intended to exercise control over the thing or place in which it was found; (c) the person had the power to exercise control over the thing or place in which it was found; and (d) the person knew that he had the power to exercise control over the thing or place in which it was found.

        The term “distribute” means to deliver a controlled substance to the actual or constructive possession of another person. The term “deliver” means the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled substance to the actual or constructive possession of another person. It is not necessary that money or anything of value change hands. The law prohibits “distribution” or “possession with intent to distribute” a controlled substance; the prosecution does not have to prove that there was, or was intended to be, a “sale” of a controlled substance to prove intent to distribute or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - COUNT 2: POSSESSION

WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE

 

 

        Charged offense

        Count 2 of the indictment charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and intentionally possessed approximately 8 grams of a methamphetamine mixture with intent to distribute it. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling was in possession of a methamphetamine mixture.

“Possession” is defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 3. You must ascertain whether or not the substance in question was in fact a methamphetamine mixture, as specified in this count of the indictment.

 

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that he was, or intended to be, in possession of a controlled substance.

“Knowledge” and “intent” were defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 2. Additionally, the defendant need not have known what the controlled substance was, if the defendant knew that he had possession of some controlled substance.

 

        Three, defendant Ameling intended to distribute some or all of the controlled substance to another person.

Again, “intent” was defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 2. Evidence of an intent to distribute a controlled substance may include drug purity, and the presence of firearms, cash, packaging material, or other distribution paraphernalia. The term “distribute” was defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 3.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of the “possession with intent to distribute” offense charged in Count 2 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find defendant Ameling not guilty of the “possession with intent to distribute” charge.

 

        Lesser-included offense: Possession

        If your verdict on the charged offense of “possession with intent to distribute” is not guilty, or if, after all reasonable efforts, you are unable to reach a verdict, you should record that decision on the verdict form, and go on to consider whether defendant Ameling is guilty only of the “lesser-included offense” of “possession of a methamphetamine mixture.” For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of “possession of a methamphetamine mixture,” the prosecution must prove both of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling was in possession of a methamphetamine mixture.

The explanation to element one of the charged offense also applies to this element of the lesser-included offense.

 

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that he was, or intended to be, in possession of a controlled substance.

The explanation to element two of the charged offense also applies to this element of the lesser-included offense.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of the “lesser-included offense” of “possession of a methamphetamine mixture,” the prosecution must prove both of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find defendant Ameling not guilty of the “lesser-included offense” of “possession of a methamphetamine mixture.”


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - COUNT 3:

MANUFACTURING “PURE” METHAMPHETAMINE

 

 

        Count 3 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and intentionally manufactured or attempted to manufacture 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine. Defendant Ameling may be found guilty of this “manufacturing” offense under either or both of the following alternatives: personally committing the offense or personally attempting to commit the offense. I will explain the elements of each of these alternatives in turn.

 

        First alternative: Personally manufacturing methamphetamine

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine under this “personal commission” alternative, the prosecution must prove both of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling manufactured actual (“pure”) methamphetamine.

        Two, defendant Ameling knew that he was manufacturing a controlled substance.

The defendant need not have known what the controlled substance was, if the defendant knew that he was manufacturing some controlled substance.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of the “manufacturing” offense charged in Count 3 of the indictment under this “personal commission” alternative, the prosecution must prove both of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find him not guilty of personally committing the “manufacturing” offense.

 

        Second alternative: Attempting to manufacture methamphetamine

        Defendant Ameling may be found guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, even if he only attempted, but did not succeed, in manufacturing that controlled substance. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine under this “attempt” alternative, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling intended to manufacture a controlled substance.

Intent to manufacture a controlled substance can be inferred from evidence that the defendant possessed or purchased all or most of the precursor chemicals or ingredients of that controlled substance; possessed equipment necessary to manufacture that controlled substance; and/or possessed, had knowledge of, asked questions of others about, or had learned from others a “recipe” or “formula” for that controlled substance or the process for manufacturing that controlled substance. No single piece of evidence necessarily establishes intent to manufacture a controlled substance; rather, the totality of the circumstances must corroborate the defendant’s intent to manufacture a controlled substance sufficiently for you to find such intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 


        Two, defendant Ameling knew that the material that he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance.

The defendant need not have known what the controlled substance was, if he knew that the material he intended to manufacture was a controlled substance.

 

        Three, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling voluntarily and intentionally carried out some act that was a substantial step toward manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine.

“A substantial step” must be something more than mere preparation, yet may be less than the last act necessary before the actual commission of the crime of manufacturing pure methamphetamine. In order for behavior to be punishable as an attempt, it need not be incompatible with innocence, yet it must be necessary to the consummation or completion of the crime and be of such a nature that a reasonable observer, viewing it in context, could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it was undertaken in accordance with a design to manufacture a controlled substance. Crimes such as attempt to manufacture methamphetamine require a defendant to engage in numerous preliminary steps that brand the enterprise as criminal. However, evidence that the defendant ordered, received, or possessed the specific chemicals and equipment necessary to manufacture methamphetamine is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant took “a substantial step” toward manufacturing a controlled substance.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of the “manufacturing” offense charged in Count 3 of the indictment under this “attempt” alternative, the prosecution must prove all of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine.

        In the Verdict Form, you will be asked to indicate whether you find defendant Ameling not guilty or guilty of the manufacturing offense, and if you find him guilty, you will then be asked to indicate whether you find him guilty of personally committing the offense, attempting to commit the offense, or both.

 

        Quantity of methamphetamine

        In addition, if you find defendant Ameling guilty of the manufacturing offense charged in Count 3, under either the “personal commission” alternative or the “attempt” alternative, and you find that the offense involved actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, then you must also determine beyond a reasonable doubt the quantity of the controlled substance actually involved in the offense for which defendant Ameling can be held responsible.

        The prosecution does not have to prove that the manufacturing offense involved the amount or quantity of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine charged in Count 3 of the indictment. However, you must determine the following matters beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) whether the offense involved the controlled substance alleged in Count 3 of the indictment, that is, actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, and if so, (2) the total quantity, in grams, of the actual (“pure”) methamphetamine involved in the offense for which defendant Ameling can be held responsible. In so doing, you may consider all of the evidence in the case that may aid in the determination of these issues. A defendant guilty of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, as charged in Count 3 of the indictment, is responsible for the methamphetamine that he personally manufactured or attempted to manufacture.

        You must determine the total quantity of methamphetamine for which defendant Ameling can be held responsible in terms of grams of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, then indicate in the Verdict Form the range within which that total quantity falls. Thus, for Count 3, you must determine whether the defendant is responsible for five grams or more, or less than five grams, of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine. In making your determination of quantity as required, it may be helpful to remember that one pound is approximately equal to 453.6 grams, and that one ounce is approximately equal to 28.34 grams.

        Again, you must make your determinations of the controlled substance involved in the manufacturing offense charged in Count 3 and the quantity of that controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - COUNT 4:

MAINTAINING A DRUG ESTABLISHMENT

 

 

 

        Count 4 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling knowingly and unlawfully opened or maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using a controlled substance, specifically, methamphetamine. The prosecution identifies the “place” or “drug establishment” as 1321 255th Avenue, Fort Atkinson, Iowa. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove both of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, defendant Ameling knowingly opened or maintained 1321 255th Avenue, Fort Atkinson, Iowa.

The defendant must have a substantial connection to the residence, and cannot be merely a casual visitor. The defendant does not have to exercise control over the premises, but proof that the defendant did have control over the premises is evidence from which you may, but are not required, to find that the defendant opened or maintained the premises. Acts evidencing maintenance include control, duration of and continuity of presence on the premises, acquisition of the site, renting or furnishing the site, repairing the site, and supervising, protecting, or supplying food to those at the site.

 

        Two, defendant Ameling did so for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, methamphetamine.

The defendant must have had the “purpose” of opening or maintaining the site for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance; it is not enough if other persons had that purpose. A defendant opens or maintains a place “for the purpose of” manufacturing, distributing, or using a controlled substance, if the defendant maintains the place for the specific purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using the controlled substance. The specific purpose need not be the sole purpose for which the place is used, but must be one of the primary or principal uses for which the place is used. Therefore, an isolated instance of drug manufacturing or distribution or use is not sufficient to constitute maintaining a drug establishment.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of the offense of “maintaining a drug establishment,” as charged in Count 4 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove both of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of “maintaining a drug establishment.”


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - COUNT 5:

DRUG USER IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

 

 

 

        Count 5 charges that, on or about September 19, 2001, Mr. Ameling, then being an unlawful user of methamphetamine, knowingly possessed one or more firearms in and affecting commerce. For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

        One, on or about September 19, 2001, defendant Ameling knowingly possessed one or more firearms.

“Knowledge” was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 2 and “possession” was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 3. In this count, the Grand Jury charges that defendant Ameling possessed one or more of the following firearms:

 

(a)a Ruger M77, 220 rifle, serial number 772-18690

(b)a Remington, model 1100, 20 gauge shotgun, serial number M328158X

(c)a Marlin, model 60, .22 caliber rifle, serial number 06110842

(d)a Ruger M77, 22-250 rifle, serial number 782-60631

(e)a Ruger M77 rifle, serial number 772-84625

(f)a Ruger M77, 338 rifle, serial number 771-59164

(g)a Mossberg, model 500, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number J274970

(h)a Ruger, model 22-250 rifle, serial number 132-90232

(i)a Remington, model 870, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number C425470M

(j)a Winchester, model 1200, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number L1275945

(k)a Llama, 9mm pistol, serial number B29257

 

You do not have to find that the defendant knowingly possessed all of the firearms charged in the indictment. It is an offense for an unlawful user of a controlled substance knowingly to possess a single firearm. Therefore, the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant was in possession of more than one of the firearms identified in the indictment; it is sufficient if the prosecution proves that he was in possession of any one of those firearms. However, you must unanimously agree on which one or more firearms the defendant possessed for you to find that this element has been proved.


        Two, during the time that defendant Ameling possessed the firearm, he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

The prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant was actually using or addicted to drugs at the exact moment he possessed the firearms in question, or any one of them, in order for the defendant to be found to be an unlawful user in possession of a firearm. The prosecution must only prove that the defendant was an “unlawful user” or addicted to a controlled substance during the time that he possessed the firearms in question, or any one of them. Also, it is not enough if use of a controlled substance was infrequent, only an isolated incident, or in the distant past. Instead, the unlawful use of a controlled substance must be consistent and prolonged, as well as contemporaneous with the possession of the firearm, meaning that the unlawful use must have occurred recently enough to indicate that the defendant was actively engaged in such conduct at the time that he possessed the firearm.

 

        Three, at some time during or before defendant Ameling’s possession of the firearm, the firearm was transported across a state line.

The prosecution and defendant Ameling have stipulated, that is, they have agreed, that the firearms in question were transported across a state line at some time before defendant Ameling received or possessed any of them, if he did indeed possess any of them. Therefore, you must consider this element to be proved.

 

        For you to find defendant Ameling guilty of this “drug user in possession of a firearm” offense, as charged in Count 5 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you must find him not guilty of this offense.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - IMPEACHMENT

 

 

 

        In Preliminary Instruction No. 14, 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.”

        A witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence; by a showing that the witness testified falsely concerning a material matter; 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. If earlier statements of a witness were admitted into evidence, they were not admitted to prove that the contents of those statements were true. Instead, you may consider those earlier statements only to determine whether you think they are consistent or inconsistent with the trial testimony of the witness, and therefore whether they affect the credibility of that witness.

        If you believe that a witness has been discredited or impeached, it is your exclusive right to give that witness’s testimony whatever weight you think it deserves.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - FAILURE TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

 

        You have heard testimony that certain physical evidence existed, but has not been preserved. Prior to trial in this matter, I ruled that certain evidence should be “suppressed,” that is, could not be used at trial, because I believed that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. After my ruling, some of the evidence in question was destroyed by government officers. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed my decision, ruling that there had been no constitutional violation and that the evidence, therefore, could be used at trial.

        Defendant Ameling has argued that the destroyed evidence was in the government’s control and would have proved facts material to the matter in controversy. In the context of this instruction, “government’s control” includes control by a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency. The government argues that the evidence was destroyed by mistake.

        If you find that the government could have produced the evidence, that the evidence was within its control, and that the evidence would have been material in deciding any of the facts in dispute in this case, then you are permitted, but not required, to infer that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the government. In deciding whether to draw this inference, you should consider whether the evidence not preserved would merely have duplicated other evidence already before you. You may also consider whether the government had a reason for not producing this evidence, which was explained to your satisfaction. Again, any inference that you decide to draw should be based on all of the facts and circumstances in this case.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - STATEMENT BY

DEFENDANT AMELING

 

 

 

        You have heard evidence that defendant Ameling allegedly made a statement to law enforcement officers. It is for you to decide the following matters:

        One, whether defendant Ameling made the statement, and

        Two, if so, how much weight you should give to that statement.

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


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

AND BURDEN OF PROOF

 

 

        Joel Gerard Ameling is presumed innocent and, therefore, not guilty. This presumption of innocence requires you to put aside all suspicion that might arise from the arrest or charge of the defendant or the fact that he is here in court. The presumption of innocence remains with defendant Ameling throughout the trial. That presumption alone is sufficient to find him not guilty. The presumption of innocence may be overcome as to the defendant only if the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the elements of an offense charged against him.

        The burden is always upon 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. Therefore, the fact that defendant Joel Gerard Ameling did not testify must not be discussed or considered by you in any way when deliberating and arriving at your verdict. The defendant is not even obligated to produce any evidence by cross-examining the witnesses who are called to testify by the prosecution.

        Unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant Ameling has committed each and every element of an offense charged in the indictment against him, then you must find him not guilty of that offense.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - REASONABLE DOUBT

 

        A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence produced by either the prosecution or the defendant, keeping in mind that the defendant never has the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence. It may also arise from the prosecution’s lack of evidence. 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 in the more serious and important transactions of life. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - DUTY TO DELIBERATE

 

 

        A verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is your duty to consult with one another and to deliberate with a view to reaching agreement if you can do so without violence to your individual judgment. Of course, you must not surrender your honest convictions as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinions of other jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. Each of you must decide the case for yourself; but you should do so only after consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors.

        In the course of your deliberations you should not hesitate to re-examine your own views, and to change your opinion if you are convinced it is wrong. To bring twelve minds to an unanimous result, you must examine the questions submitted to you openly and frankly, with proper regard for the opinions of others and with a willingness to re-examine your own views.

        Remember that if, in your individual judgment, the evidence fails to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on an offense charged against him, then he should have your vote for a not guilty verdict on that offense. If all of you reach the same conclusion, then the verdict of the jury must be not guilty for the defendant on that offense. Of course, the opposite also applies. If, in your individual judgment, the evidence establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on an offense charged, then your vote should be for a verdict of guilty against the defendant on that offense, and if all of you reach that conclusion, then the verdict of the jury must be guilty for the defendant on that offense. As I instructed you earlier, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of each crime charged. Therefore, you must give separate consideration to each charge against the defendant, and you must return a separate, unanimous verdict on each charge.

        Remember, also, that the question before you can never be whether the government wins or loses the case. The government, as well as society, always wins, regardless of whether your verdict is not guilty or guilty, when justice is done.

        Finally, remember that you are not partisans; you are judges—judges of the facts. Your sole interest is to seek the truth from the evidence. You are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence.

        You may conduct your deliberations as you choose. However, I suggest that you carefully consider all of the evidence bearing upon the questions before you. You may take all the time that you feel is necessary.

        There is no reason to think that another trial would be tried in a better way or that a more conscientious, impartial, or competent jury would be selected to hear it. Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you. If you should fail to agree on a verdict, the case is left open and must be disposed of at some later time.


FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 14 - DUTY DURING DELIBERATIONS

 

        There are certain rules you must follow while conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict:

        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, if the defendant is guilty, the sentence to be imposed is my responsibility. You may not consider punishment of Joel Gerard Ameling in any way in deciding whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Third, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may send a note to me through the 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.

        Fourth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law in these instructions. The verdict on each charge, whether not guilty or 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, I am giving you the verdict form. A 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. When you have reached a unanimous verdict, your foreperson must complete one copy of the verdict form and all of you must sign that copy to record your individual agreement with the verdict and to show that it is unanimous. The foreperson must bring the signed verdict form to the courtroom when it is time to announce your verdict. When you have reached a verdict, the foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

        DATED this 11th day of December, 2003.

 

                                                     mwbjustsig1.gif

 

 

 

 

 

                                                    __________________________________

                                                    MARK W. BENNETT

                                                    CHIEF JUDGE, U. S. DISTRICT COURT

                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 

Plaintiff,

No. CR 02-3005-MWB

vs.


VERDICT FORM

JOEL GERARD AMELING,

Defendant.

____________________



        As to defendant Joel Gerard Ameling, we, the Jury, unanimously find as follows:

COUNT 2: POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE

VERDICT

Step 1:

Charged Offense

On the charge of possession of a methamphetamine mixture with intent to distribute it, as charged in Count 2 of the indictment and explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 4, please mark your verdict. (If you find the defendant “not guilty” or enter “no verdict,” please consider the remaining “step” in this section; however, if you find the defendant “guilty,” do not consider the question in step 2.)

____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No verdict

Step 2:

Lesser-included Offense

If you found the defendant “not guilty” on the charged offense of possession with intent to distribute, or entered “no verdict” on that charge, please enter your verdict on the “lesser-included offense” of “possession” of a methamphetamine mixture.

____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

COUNT 3: MANUFACTURING

VERDICT

Step 1:

On the charge of manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine, as charged in Count 3 of the indictment and explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 5, please mark your verdict. (If you find the defendant “guilty,” please consider the remaining “step” in this section; however, if you find the defendant “not guilty,” do not consider the questions in step 2.)

____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2:

If you have found the defendant guilty of this offense, please indicate (a) on which alternative or alternatives you find him guilty, and (b) the quantity of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine involved in this offense for which you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant can be held responsible. (Determination of drug quantity, as required in (b), is explained in the “Quantity of methamphetamine” section of Final Jury Instruction No. 5, beginning on page 37.)

(a)

Alternative

_____ Personally manufacturing actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

_____ Attempting to manufacture actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

(b)

Drug Quantity

___ 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

___ 5 grams or more of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

___ Less than 5 grams of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

___ Less than 5 grams of actual (“pure”) methamphetamine

COUNT 4: MAINTAINING A DRUG ESTABLISHMENT

VERDICT

On the charge of maintaining a drug establishment, as charged in Count 4 of the indictment and explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, please mark your verdict.

____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

COUNT 5: DRUG USER IN POSSESSION OF A FIREARM

VERDICT

Step 1:

On the charge of being a drug user in possession of a firearm, as charged in Count 5 of the indictment and explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 7, please mark your verdict. (If you find the defendant “guilty,” please consider the remaining “step” in this section; however, if you find the defendant “not guilty,” do not consider the questions in step 2.)

____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2:

If you have found the defendant guilty of this offense, please indicate which firearm or firearms the defendant possessed during the time that he was an unlawful drug user.

 

_____ a Ruger M77, 220 rifle, serial number 772-18690

_____ a Remington, model 1100, 20 gauge shotgun, serial number M328158X

_____ a Marlin, model 60, .22 caliber rifle, serial number 06110842

______ a Ruger M77, 22-250 rifle, serial number 782-60631

_____ a Ruger M77 rifle, serial number 772-84625

_____ a Ruger M77, 338 rifle, serial number 771-59164

_____ a Mossberg, model 500, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number J274970

_____ a Ruger, model 22-250 rifle, serial number 132-90232

_____ a Remington, model 870, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number C425470M

_____ a Winchester, model 1200, 12 gauge shotgun, serial number L1275945

_____ a Llama, 9mm pistol, serial number B29257




        ________________

                 Date


_______________________________

Foreperson


______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


______________________________

Juror


_______________________________

Juror


______________________________

Juror