IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. CR 01-4034-MWB

vs.



PRELIMINARY

AND FINAL

INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY

JOHN SAMUEL WILSON,
Defendant.






TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS 1

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS 2

NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES 3

NO. 4 - OUTLINE OF TRIAL 9

NO. 5 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE 10

NO. 6 - REASONABLE DOUBT 11

NO. 7 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE 12

NO. 8 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 13

NO. 9 - BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES 15

NO. 10 - OBJECTIONS 16

NO. 11 - NOTE-TAKING 17

NO. 12 - CONDUCT OF THE JURY 18

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS 20

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION 20

NO. 2 - COUNT 1: FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 22

NO. 3 - COUNT 2: MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH 24

NO. 4 - COUNT 3: MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION 26

NO. 5 - COUNT 4: FALSIFYING RECORDS 28

NO. 6 - COUNTS 1 THROUGH 4: AIDING AND ABETTING 30

NO. 7 - SPECIFIC DEFENSE 32

NO. 8 - IMPEACHMENT 33

NO. 9 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND BURDEN OF PROOF 34

NO. 10 - REASONABLE DOUBT 35

NO. 11 - DUTY TO DELIBERATE 36

NO. 12 - DUTY DURING DELIBERATIONS 38



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 defendant is not guilty or guilty of each of the crimes charged against him. 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 defendant John Samuel Wilson, not anyone else, is on trial here. This defendant is on trial only for the crimes charged against him, not for anything else.

Finally, you must give separate consideration to the evidence about each charge against the defendant. The defendant is entitled to have each charge against him considered separately. Therefore, you must return a separate, unanimous verdict on each charge against the defendant.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSES



To help you follow the evidence, I will give you a summary of the elements of each offense charged in the indictment. Each offense consists of "elements," which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I must first explain some preliminary matters concerning the elements of all of the offenses charged.

On or about May 31, 1996, a Petition in Bankruptcy for liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, which commenced a case identified as In re: John S. and Betty M. Wilson, Case No. 96-51366. Whenever I refer to a "bankruptcy proceeding" or a "bankruptcy case" in these instructions, that is the case to which I am referring. The person for whom a bankruptcy case has been commenced is called the "debtor." Therefore, the prosecution must prove that defendant John Samuel Wilson is a debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding identified above.

When a debtor files a petition seeking protection from creditors under the bankruptcy laws, a "bankruptcy estate" is created, which is comprised of all property belonging to the debtor, wherever located, and by whomever held, as of the time of the filing of the bankruptcy case. The "bankruptcy estate" also includes proceeds, products, rents, or profits of or from the property of the estate, but it does not include earnings from services performed by the debtor after the case is filed.

The United States Bankruptcy Trustee is the representative of the bankruptcy estate and represents all unsecured creditors of the bankruptcy estate.

"Knowledge" is an element of the offenses charged in this case and must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. "Knowledge" may be proved like anything else. An act is done "knowingly" if a defendant is aware of the act and does not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. The prosecution is not required to prove that the defendant knew that his acts or omissions were unlawful.

Each of the offenses charged in this case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did something "with intent to defraud." To act "with intent to defraud" means to act knowingly and with the intent to deceive someone for the purpose of causing some financial loss, loss of property, or loss of property rights to another, or to bring about a financial gain to oneself or another to the detriment of a third party.

Each count of the indictment charges that the defendant concealed more than one asset or made more than one fraudulent statement, declaration, or record. The prosecution does not have to prove that all of the unlawful acts alleged in a particular count were committed; rather, it is sufficient for proof of that count if the prosecution proves that at least one such unlawful act was committed. However, you must unanimously agree on which one or more of the unlawful acts were committed. If you cannot agree in this manner, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of that particular count.

I will now give you a summary of the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment.



COUNT 1: FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

Count 1 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently concealed and caused to be concealed from creditors and from the United States Trustee property belonging to his bankruptcy estate consisting of the following: (1) all or part of approximately $55,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a lawsuit; (2) approximately $35,000 in wire transfer proceeds; and (3) income earned between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this "fraudulent concealment" offense, the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor;

Two, the property alleged in this count of the indictment was part of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor;

Three, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant knowingly concealed, or caused to be concealed, one or more of the items of property identified in this count of the indictment from the bankruptcy Trustee charged with the custody and control of that property; and

Four, such concealment was done with the intent to defraud.



COUNT 2: MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH

Count 2 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently made false material statements under oath in and in relation to his bankruptcy proceeding by falsely testifying under oath in a proceeding before the case trustee at a meeting of creditors that he lost approximately $55,000 in proceeds from his lawsuit in a real estate transaction with David Tilden.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "making a false statement under oath," the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor;

Two, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant made a false statement while under oath regarding a matter material to or in relation to the bankruptcy proceeding;

Three, the defendant knew the statement made under oath was false when it was made; and

Four, the defendant made the false statement with the intent to defraud.



COUNT 3: MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION

Count 3 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently made false declarations, certificates, verifications, and statements under penalty of perjury, as permitted in relation to bankruptcy proceedings, when he made fraudulent statements on his Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets, and other written statements. Specifically, the Grand Jury charges that the defendant made the following false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements: (1) that he was not a party in any lawsuits one year prior to filing bankruptcy; (2) that he did not have an interest in any businesses or business bank accounts; (3) that he made no payments to creditors; (4) that he had not received any transfer of funds; (5) that he had not transferred money or property to any individuals; (6) that he had not given any gifts one year prior to filing bankruptcy; (7) that he had sustained no business losses; and (8) that he had no additional income between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "making a false declaration," the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor;

Two, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant made a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, as permitted in relation to bankruptcy proceedings, on his Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets, and other written statements;

Three, the defendant knew the declaration, certificate, verification, or statement was false when made; and

Four, the defendant made the false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement with the intent to defraud.



COUNT 4: FALSIFYING RECORDS

Count 4 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 29, 1996, September 4, 1996, and November 25, 1996, after filing his bankruptcy case, John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently concealed and falsified recorded information relating to his property and financial affairs.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "falsifying records," the prosecution must prove the following three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor;

Two, on one or more of the dates alleged, after filing his bankruptcy case, the defendant knowingly concealed or falsified recorded information relating to his property and financial affairs; and

Three, the defendant concealed or falsified records with intent to defraud.



AIDING AND ABETTING COUNTS 1 THROUGH 4

A person may also be found guilty of one of the bankruptcy fraud offenses charged in Counts 1 through 4, even if he did not personally do every act constituting that offense, if he aided and abetted the commission of that offense by another. For you to find the defendant guilty of a charged offense under an "aiding and abetting" alternative, the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, all of the essential elements of the charged offense were committed by some person or persons;

Two, the defendant knew that the charged offense was being committed or was going to be committed;

Three, the defendant knowingly acted in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, or aiding the commission of the charged offense; and

Four, the defendant did so with intent to defraud.



This is only a preliminary outline of the elements of the offenses charged in the indictment. At the end of the trial, I will give you final written instructions on these offenses. Because they are more detailed, those final instructions govern on the elements of the offenses charged.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - OUTLINE OF TRIAL



The trial will proceed as follows:

After these preliminary instructions, the prosecutor may make an opening statement. Next, the lawyer for the 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 the defendant may, but has no obligation to, cross-examine. Following the prosecution's case, the defendant may, but does not have to, present evidence and call witnesses. If the 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. 5 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE



Defendant John Samuel Wilson 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 this defendant or the fact that he is here in court. The presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial. That presumption alone is sufficient to find the defendant not guilty. The presumption of innocence may be overcome as to the defendant only if the prosecution proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, every essential element of a crime charged against him.

The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his 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. 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 the defendant has committed each and every essential element of an offense charged in the indictment, you must find him not guilty of that offense.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - REASONABLE DOUBT



A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence produced by the prosecution. 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. 7 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE



Evidence is:

1. Testimony.

2. Exhibits 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 determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Also, the weight of the evidence should not be determined merely by the number or volume of documents or exhibits. The weight of evidence depends on its quality, not quantity. The quality and weight of the evidence is for you to decide.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - 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 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 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.

If a defendant testifies, you should judge his or her testimony in the same manner in which you judge the testimony of any other witness.

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 prosecution 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. 9 - 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. 10 - 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. 11 - 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. 12 - 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 or make any investigation about the case on your own.

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 4th day of February, 2002.



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.

In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

Before instructing you on the elements of the individual offenses charged in this case, I must first give you some additional explanations that apply to all of the offenses:

The indictment charges that each offense was committed "on or about" a certain date or dates. 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 Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 3, I defined "bankruptcy estate." I now give you these additional definitions of "bankruptcy estate" and what assets the debtor must disclose. The term "bankruptcy estate" means all rights, title, share, or interests in property owned by a debtor at the time a bankruptcy petition is filed. The bankruptcy estate may also mean property acquired after the commencement of the proceeding and, under some circumstances, may include interests in property owned by the debtor within one year before the date of the filing of the petition. Federal law requires the debtor to disclose the existence of property whose immediate status in bankruptcy is uncertain, so that the bankruptcy court can determine whether the property is or is not part of the bankruptcy estate. Thus, the debtor may not impede or prevent a bankruptcy court's determination of the status of property in which the debtor may have an interest by failing to report its existence; failure to report the existence of such property is a material omission. Therefore, "property of the bankruptcy estate" includes property in which the debtor may have an interest even if that property may ultimately be determined by the bankruptcy court to be exempt from, or not part of, the bankruptcy estate.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - COUNT 1:

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT





Count 1 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently concealed and caused to be concealed from creditors and from the United States Trustee certain property belonging to his bankruptcy estate. For you to find the defendant guilty of this "fraudulent concealment" offense, the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor.

The prosecution must prove that defendant John Samuel Wilson is a debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding identified in this case, In re: John S. and Betty M. Wilson, Case No. 96-51366.



Two, one or more of the items of property alleged in this count of the indictment were part of the bankruptcy estate of the debtor.

The property identified in this count of the indictment is the following: (1) all or part of approximately $55,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a lawsuit; (2) approximately $35,000 in wire transfer proceeds; and (3) income earned between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996.



Three, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant knowingly concealed, or caused to be concealed, one or more of the items of property identified in this count of the indictment from the bankruptcy Trustee charged with the custody and control of that property.

"Concealment" means not only hiding property or assets, it also includes preventing the discovery of assets, transferring property, or withholding information required to be made known. Concealment of property of the estate may include transferring property to a third party or entity, destroying property, withholding knowledge concerning the existence or whereabouts of the property, or knowingly doing anything else by which the defendant acts to hinder, unreasonably delay, or defraud any creditors. The prosecution need not prove that the concealment was successful. Nor must the prosecution prove that all three of the items of property identified were property of the bankruptcy estate or that the defendant concealed all three items of property; rather, it is sufficient if the prosecution proves that the defendant concealed one item of property that was property of the bankruptcy estate.



Four, such concealment was done with the intent to defraud.

"Intent to defraud" was defined for you in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 4.



For you to find the defendant guilty of this "fraudulent concealment" offense, as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of this "fraudulent concealment" offense.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - COUNT 2:

MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT UNDER OATH





Count 2 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently made false material statements under oath in and in relation to his bankruptcy proceeding by falsely testifying under oath in a proceeding before the case trustee at a meeting of creditors. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "making a false statement under oath," the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor.

The prosecution must prove that defendant John Samuel Wilson is a debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding identified in this case, In re: John S. and Betty M. Wilson, Case No. 96-51366.



Two, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant made a false statement while under oath regarding a matter material to or in relation to the bankruptcy proceeding.

The false statement identified in this count is that Wilson lost approximately $55,000 in proceeds from his lawsuit in a real estate transaction with David Tilden. This statement was "material" if it had a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the outcome of the bankruptcy proceeding.



Three, the defendant knew the statement made under oath was false when it was made.

Four, the defendant made the false statement with the intent to defraud.

"Intent to defraud" was defined for you in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 4.



For you to find the defendant guilty of the offense of "making a false statement under oath," as charged in Count 2 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of the offense of "making a false statement under oath."

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - COUNT 3:

MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION





Count 3 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 31, 1996, defendant John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently made false declarations, certificates, verifications, and statements under penalty of perjury, as permitted in relation to bankruptcy proceedings, when he made fraudulent statements on his Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets, and other written statements. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "making a false declaration," the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor.

The prosecution must prove that defendant John Samuel Wilson is a debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding identified in this case, In re: John S. and Betty M. Wilson, Case No. 96-51366.



Two, on or about May 31, 1996, the defendant made a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, as permitted in relation to bankruptcy proceedings, on his Statement of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets, and other written statements.

The Grand Jury charges that the defendant made the following false declarations, certificates, verifications, or statements: (1) that he was not a party in any lawsuits one year prior to filing bankruptcy; (2) that he did not have an interest in any businesses or business bank accounts; (3) that he made no payments to creditors; (4) that he had not received any transfer of funds; (5) that he had not transferred money or property to any individuals; (6) that he had not given any gifts one year prior to filing bankruptcy; (7) that he had sustained no business losses; and (8) that he had no additional income between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996.



Three, the defendant knew the declaration, certificate, verification, or statement was false when made.

Four, the defendant made the false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement with the intent to defraud.

"Intent to defraud" was defined for you in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 4.



For you to find the defendant guilty of the offense of "making a false declaration," as charged in Count 3 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of the offense of "making a false declaration."

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - COUNT 4:

FALSIFYING RECORDS





Count 4 of the indictment charges that, on or about May 29, 1996, September 4, 1996, and November 25, 1996, after filing his bankruptcy case, John Samuel Wilson knowingly and fraudulently concealed and falsified recorded information relating to his property and financial affairs. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense of "making a false declaration," the prosecution must prove the following three essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, on or about May 31, 1996, a bankruptcy case was pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, in which John Samuel Wilson was the debtor.

The prosecution must prove that defendant John Samuel Wilson is a debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding identified in this case, In re: John S. and Betty M. Wilson, Case No. 96-51366.



Two, on one or more of the dates alleged, after filing his bankruptcy case, the defendant knowingly concealed or falsified recorded information relating to his property and financial affairs.

The Grand Jury charges that the defendant concealed or falsified records on the following dates: (1) on or about May 29, 1996; (2) on or about September 4, 1996; and (3) on or about November 25, 1996. "Concealment" was defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 2, in reference to element three, on page 22. To "falsify" means to alter fraudulently, or to introduce false matter into, or to give an incorrect version of, a record or an entry in a record.



Three, the defendant concealed or falsified records with intent to defraud.

"Intent to defraud" was defined for you in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 4.



For you to find the defendant guilty of the offense of "falsifying records," as charged in Count 4 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove all of the essential elements of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of the offense of "falsifying records."

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - COUNTS 1 THROUGH 4:

AIDING AND ABETTING





A person may also be found guilty of one of the bankruptcy fraud offenses charged in Counts 1 through 4, even if he did not personally do every act constituting that offense, if he aided and abetted the commission of that offense by another. For you to find the defendant guilty of a charged offense under an "aiding and abetting" alternative, the prosecution must prove the following four essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant:

One, all of the essential elements of the charged offense were committed by some person or persons.

The prosecution must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of the particular bankruptcy fraud charge in question, as charged in Counts 1, 2, 3, or 4, and explained in Final Jury Instructions Nos. 2, 3, 4, or 5, respectively, were committed by some person or persons on or about the date alleged in that specific count. It is not necessary that the other person or persons be convicted or even identified.



Two, the defendant knew that the charged offense was being committed or was going to be committed.

Three, the defendant knowingly acted in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, or aiding the commission of the charged offense.

You should understand that merely being present at the scene of an event, or merely acting in the same way as others or merely associating with others, does not prove that a person has voluntarily aided and abetted the commission of an offense. A person who has no knowledge that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed, but who happens to act in a way that advances some offense, does not thereby become criminally liable for that offense. Similarly, mere knowledge of an illegal act is not enough to prove that the defendant aided and abetted that act; rather, the prosecution must establish some degree of knowing involvement and cooperation.



Four, the defendant did so with intent to defraud.

"Intent to defraud" was defined for you in Preliminary Jury Instruction No. 3, on page 4.



For you to find the defendant guilty of a bankruptcy fraud offense, as charged in Count 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the indictment, under this "aiding and abetting" alternative, the prosecution must prove all four of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to the defendant with regard to that offense. Otherwise, you must find the defendant not guilty of aiding and abetting that bankruptcy fraud offense.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - SPECIFIC DEFENSE



In addition to denying that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the essential elements of the offenses charged, the defendant also asserts the following specific defense:

The defendant contends that he did not act "with intent to defraud," as required for proof of each of the charges against him, but that he instead acted in "good faith." The defendant's "good faith" is a complete defense to the charges in this case, if the defendant's "good faith" is inconsistent with the "intent to defraud," which is an element of the charges against him.

Fraudulent intent is not presumed or assumed; it is personal and not imputed. One is chargeable with his own personal intent, not the intent of some other person. Bad faith is an essential element of fraudulent intent. One who acts with honest intention is not chargeable with fraudulent intent. Evidence that establishes only that a person made a mistake in judgment, or was careless, does not establish fraudulent intent. In order to establish fraudulent intent on the part of a person, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly and intentionally attempted to deceive another. One who knowingly and intentionally deceives another is chargeable with fraudulent intent, notwithstanding the manner and form in which the deception was attempted.

Evidence that the defendant acted in "good faith" may be considered by you, together with all of the other evidence, in determining whether or not the defendant acted with intent to defraud.

Remember that the burden never shifts to a defendant in a criminal case to prove his specific defense or otherwise to prove his innocence.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - IMPEACHMENT



In Preliminary Instruction No. 8, 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 may treat certain evidence.

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.

You have heard evidence that defendant John Samuel Wilson has previously been convicted of a crime. You may use that evidence only to help you decide whether or not to believe his testimony and how much weight to give it.

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 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

AND BURDEN OF PROOF





Defendant John Samuel Wilson 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 this defendant, or the fact that he is here in court. The presumption of innocence remains with the defendant 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 government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, every essential element of a crime charged against him.

The burden is always upon the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant to prove his 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 the defendant has committed each and every essential element of an offense charged against him in the indictment, you must find him not guilty of that offense.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - REASONABLE DOUBT



A reasonable doubt may arise from the evidence or lack of evidence produced by the prosecution. 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. 11 - 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 the defendant 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 charge, and if all of you reach that conclusion, then the verdict of the jury must be guilty for the defendant on that charge. As I instructed you earlier, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of a crime charged. 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. 12 - 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 John Samuel Wilson 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, 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, the verdict form is attached to these instructions. The verdict form is simply the written notice of the decision you reach in this case. You will take this form to the jury room, and, when each of you has agreed on the verdicts, your foreperson will fill in the form and date it, you will all sign it, and your foreperson will advise the Court Security Officer that you are ready to return to the courtroom.

DATED this 5th day of February, 2002.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. CR 01-4034-MWB

vs.



VERDICT FORM

JOHN SAMUEL WILSON,
Defendant.

____________________





We, the Jury, unanimously find defendant John Samuel Wilson not guilty or guilty as follows:

COUNT 1 VERDICT
Step 1: On the charge of "fraudulent concealment," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 2, please mark your verdict. ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate whether you find that he personally committed the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 2, or aided and abetted commission of that offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6. (If you find the defendant guilty under both alternatives, please mark both.)
_____ personally committing the offense _____ Aiding and abetting the offense
Step 3: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate the item or items of property that you unanimously agree he fraudulently concealed.
_____ all or part of approximately $55,000 in proceeds from the settlement of a lawsuit
_____ approximately $35,000 in wire transfer proceeds
_____ income earned between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996
COUNT 2 VERDICT
Step 1: On the charge of "making a false statement under oath," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, please mark your verdict. ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate whether you find that he personally committed the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 3, or aided and abetted commission of that offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6. (If you found the defendant guilty under both alternatives, please mark both.)
_____ personally committing the offense _____ Aiding and abetting the offense
COUNT 3 VERDICT
Step 1: On the charge of "making a false declaration," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 4, please mark your verdict. ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate whether you find that he personally committed the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 4, or aided and abetted commission of that offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6. (If you found the defendant guilty under both alternatives, please mark both.)
_____ personally committing the offense _____ Aiding and abetting the offense
Step 3: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate which one or more declarations you unanimously agree were false and made with intent to defraud.
_____ that he was not a party in any lawsuits one year prior to filing bankruptcy
_____ that he did not have an interest in any businesses or business bank accounts
_____ that he made no payments to creditors
_____ that he had not received any transfer of funds
_____ that he had not transferred money or property to any individuals
_____ that he had not given any gifts one year prior to filing bankruptcy
_____ that he had sustained no business losses
_____ that he had no additional income between May 30, 1995, and May 30, 1996
COUNT 4 VERDICT
Step 1: On the charge of "falsifying records," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 5, please mark your verdict. ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Step 2: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate whether you find that he personally committed the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 5, or aided and abetted commission of that offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6. (If you found the defendant guilty under both alternatives, please mark both.)
_____ personally committing the offense _____ Aiding and abetting the offense
Step 3: If you have found defendant John Samuel Wilson guilty of this offense, please indicate on which one or more of the following dates you unanimously agree he concealed or falsified records
_____ May 29, 1996
_____ September 4, 1996
_____ November 25, 1996


________________

Date



_______________________________

Foreperson



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror