IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. CR 99-4002-MWB

vs.



PRELIMINARY

AND FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO THE JURY

TUAN VAN UNG and DUY DUC LE, a/k/a "Trang,"
Defendants.






TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 2 - STATEMENT OF THE CASE

NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF OFFENSES

NO. 4 - OUTLINE OF TRIAL

NO. 5 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

NO. 6 - REASONABLE DOUBT

NO. 7 - DEFINITION OF EVIDENCE

NO. 8 - TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE-RECORDED CONVERSATION

NO. 9 - CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

NO. 10 - BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSES

NO. 11 - OBJECTIONS

NO. 12 - NOTE-TAKING

NO. 13 - CONDUCT OF THE JURY

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

NO. 1 - INTRODUCTION

NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS

NO. 3 - NATURE OF AN INDICTMENT

NO. 4 - "INTENT"AND "KNOWLEDGE"

NO. 5 - "POSSESSION," "DISTRIBUTION," AND "DELIVERY"

NO. 6 - COUNT 1: CONSPIRACY

NO. 7 - ACTS AND STATEMENTS OF CO-CONSPIRATORS

NO. 8 - COUNT 1: "LESSER-INCLUDED CONSPIRACY OFFENSE"

NO. 9 - COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4: DISTRIBUTION OF

METHAMPHETAMINE WITHIN 1,000 FEET

OF A "SCHOOLYARD"

NO. 10 - "AIDING AND ABETTING" ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 2

THROUGH 4

NO. 11 - COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4: "LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE"

OF DISTRIBUTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE

NO. 12 - "AIDING AND ABETTING" ALTERNATIVE TO THE

"LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES" TO COUNTS

2 THROUGH 4

NO. 13 - IMPEACHMENT AND TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN

WITNESSES

NO. 14 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND BURDEN OF

PROOF

NO. 15 - REASONABLE DOUBT

NO. 16 - DUTY TO DELIBERATE

NO. 17 - 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 any oral instructions given to you during the trial and the written instructions given at the end of the trial, and apply them as a whole to the facts of the case. In considering these instructions, the order in which they are given is not important.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - STATEMENT OF THE CASE



This is a criminal case brought by the United States of America against defendants Tuan Van Ung and Duy Duc Le, who is also known as "Trang." In a four-count indictment, the United States charges these defendants with drug-trafficking offenses that were allegedly committed in the Sioux City area. Specifically, in Count 1 of the indictment, the United States charges these defendants with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." In this case, the "schoolyard" is alleged to be St. Paul's Lutheran School, located at 614 Jennings, in Sioux City, Iowa. The conspiracy allegedly existed from about January 1995 through December 1997. In Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment, the United States charges these defendants with separate counts of distributing or aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." Again, the "schoolyard" is alleged to be St. Paul's Lutheran School. Count 2 alleges a distribution on or about October 17, 1997; Count 3 alleges a distribution on or about October 22, 1997; and Count 4 alleges a distribution on or about October 29, 1997.

These charges are set forth in what is called an indictment. An indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against them; therefore, each defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until the prosecution proves his guilt on a particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your duty is to decide from the evidence whether each defendant is not guilty or guilty of the crimes charged against him. You will find the facts from the evidence. You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or conclusions from facts that have been established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to the law, which I will give you in these and in my other instructions, 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, unaffected by anything except 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.

Please remember that only these defendants, not anyone else, are on trial here, and that each defendant is on trial only for the crimes charged against him, not for anything else.

Finally, keep in mind that the indictment charges two defendants with several separate offenses. Therefore, you must consider separately each count and each defendant charged with that count, and return a separate verdict for each defendant on each count.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - ELEMENTS OF OFFENSES



To help you follow the evidence, here is a brief summary of the elements of each kind of offense charged. In order for you to find a particular defendant guilty on a particular count, the prosecution must prove each of the essential elements of the offense charged in that count beyond a reasonable doubt against that defendant.



Conspiracy

The crime of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, has four essential elements, which are the following:

One, between about January 1995 through December 1997, two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to distribute methamphetamine;

Two, the location from which the conspirators agreed to distribute methamphetamine was within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard";

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

Four, at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of the agreement or understanding.

For you to find a particular defendant guilty of this offense, the prosecution must prove all of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to that defendant; otherwise, you must find that defendant not guilty of this offense. To help you decide whether or not there was an agreement to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," you should consider the elements of that substantive offense, which follow.



Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard"

The crime of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as charged in Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment, has three essential elements, which are the following:

One, on or about the date alleged, the defendant intentionally distributed a controlled substance to another;

Two, at the time of the distribution, the defendant knew that what he was distributing was a controlled substance; and

Three, the distribution took place within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."

For you to find a particular defendant guilty of a particular count of this crime, the prosecution must prove all three of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to that count and that defendant; otherwise, you must find that defendant not guilty of that count of this offense. Again, Count 2 alleges a distribution on or about October 17, 1997; Count 3 alleges a distribution on or about October 22, 1997; and Count 4 alleges a distribution on or about October 29, 1997.



"Aiding and abetting" alternative to Counts 2 through 4

Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment also charge "aiding and abetting" the distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." A defendant may also be found guilty of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," even if that defendant did not personally do every act constituting the offense charged, if that defendant aided and abetted the commission of the offense. "Aiding and abetting" means knowingly acting in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, or aiding the offense.



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 the offenses charged. 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 each of the defendants 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 lawyers for the defendants may, but have no obligation to, cross-examine. Following the prosecution's case, the defendants may, but do not have to, present evidence and call witnesses. If the defendants call 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



The defendants are 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 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, each element 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 any 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 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. Keep in mind that you must give separate consideration to the evidence about each individual defendant and each offense charged. Each defendant is entitled to be treated separately, and you must return a separate verdict for each defendant on each count.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - REASONABLE DOUBT



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



Your verdict must be based only on the evidence and these and other instructions that I may give you during the trial.

Evidence is:

1. Testimony in person.

2. Exhibits I admit into evidence.

3. Stipulations, which are agreements between the parties.

4. Any other matter I admit into evidence.

Evidence may be "direct" or "circumstantial." However, 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.

If you have exhibits to consider as evidence, in deciding whether and how to rely on such an exhibit, you should evaluate its contents and its relationship to the other evidence in the case. The fact that an exhibit may be given to you for your inspection does not mean that you must rely on it more than you rely on the testimony of the witnesses.

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.

Furthermore, a particular item of evidence is sometimes received for a limited purpose only. That is, it can be used by you only for one particular purpose, and not for any other purpose. I will tell you if that occurs, and instruct you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be used.

Also, the weight of the evidence is not determined by the number of witnesses testifying as to the existence or non-existence of any fact. Likewise, the weight of the evidence should not be determined by the number or volume of documents or exhibits introduced by either the prosecution or a defendant. Do not give greater consideration to documents or exhibits, because of their volume and number, or the fact that they are in written form, than you give to any other evidence admitted in this case.

If schedules, summaries, or charts are admitted into evidence, you may use those schedules, summaries, and charts as evidence, along with the underlying documents, which will also be admitted into evidence.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - TRANSCRIPT OF

TAPE-RECORDED CONVERSATION



You may hear a tape recording accompanied by a typed transcript. The transcript also undertakes to identify the speakers engaged in the conversation. You are permitted to view the transcript for the limited purpose of helping you follow the conversation as you listen to the tape recording, and also to help you keep track of the speakers. The transcript, however, is not evidence. A tape recording itself is the primary evidence of its own contents.

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

Differences in meaning between what you hear in the recording and read in the transcript may be caused by such things as the inflection in a speaker's voice. You should, therefore, rely on what you hear rather than what you read when there is a difference.

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - 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 is an innocent misrecollection or lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood, and that may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or a small detail.

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.

You may hear evidence from persons described as experts. Persons who, by knowledge, skill, training, education, or experience, have become expert in some field may state their opinions on matters in that field and may also state the reasons for their opinion. You should consider expert testimony just like any other testimony. You may accept or reject it, and give it as much weight as you think it deserves, considering the witness's education and experience, the soundness of the reasons given for the opinion, and the acceptability of the methods used, 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. 10 - 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. 11 - 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. Finally, do not infer or conclude from any ruling or other comment I may make that I have any opinions on the merits of the case favoring one side or the other.





PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - NOTE-TAKING



If you want to take notes during the trial, you may. However, it is difficult to take detailed notes and pay attention to what the witnesses are saying. If you do take notes, be sure that your note-taking does not interfere with listening to and considering all the evidence. Also, if you take notes, do not discuss them with anyone before you begin your deliberations. Do not take your notes with you at the end of the day. Be sure to leave them on your chair in the courtroom. The court attendant will safeguard the notes. No one will read them. The notes will remain confidential throughout the trial and will be destroyed at the conclusion of the trial.

If you choose not to take notes, remember it is your own individual responsibility to listen carefully to the evidence. You cannot give this responsibility to someone who is taking notes. We depend on the judgment of all members of the jury; you must all remember and consider the evidence in this case.

Whether or not you take notes, you should rely on your own memory regarding what was said. Your notes are not evidence. A juror's notes are not more reliable than the memory of another juror who chooses to consider carefully the evidence without taking notes. You should not be overly influenced by the notes.

You will notice that we do 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. 13 - 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 lawsuit 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. In fact, until the trial is over I suggest that you avoid reading any newspapers or news journals at all, and avoid listening to any TV or radio newscasts at all. If there are news reports about this case, you might inadvertently find yourself reading or listening to something before you could do anything about 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 30th day of May, 2000.





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.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 2 - DUTY OF JURORS



Your duty is to decide from the evidence whether each of the defendants is not guilty or guilty of the crimes charged against him. You will find the facts from the evidence. You are entitled to consider that evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in the affairs of life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or conclusions from facts that have been established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to the law, which I give you in these and in my other instructions, 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, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you. Do not take anything I may have said or done during the trial or may say or do as indicating what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.

Please remember that only these defendants, not anyone else, are on trial here, and that each defendant is on trial only for the crimes charged against him, not for anything else.

Also keep in mind that the indictment each defendant with several separate offenses. Therefore, you must consider separately each count and each defendant charged with that count, and return a separate verdict for each defendant on each count.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 - NATURE OF AN INDICTMENT



The charges against these defendants are set forth in what is called an indictment. As I told you at the beginning of this trial, an indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against them, and each is therefore presumed to be innocent unless and until the prosecution proves his guilt on an offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

The indictment charges that the offenses were committed "on or about" a certain date or "between" two dates. However, 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 the indictment, the defendants are charged with more than one offense. Keep in mind that the prosecution does not have to prove all of the offenses against a defendant for you to find that defendant guilty of an offense, nor does the prosecution have to prove that both of the defendants are guilty of a particular count. Instead, you must consider separately each crime charged against each defendant and must return a separate verdict for each crime charged against each defendant. Your verdict on each charge against each defendant must be unanimous.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 4 - "INTENT"AND "KNOWLEDGE"



"Intent" and "knowledge" are elements of the offenses charged in this case. "Intent" and "knowledge" may be proved like anything else. You may consider the evidence of a defendant's words, acts, or omissions, along with all of the facts and circumstances in evidence that may aid in your determination of that defendant's "knowledge" or "intent."

As to "intent," you may, but are not required to, infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted.

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 a defendant knew that his or her acts or omissions were unlawful.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 5 - "POSSESSION," "DISTRIBUTION,"

AND "DELIVERY"



The charges in this case also involve "possession," "distribution," and "delivery" of methamphetamine. 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 controlled substance was found or mere physical proximity to such an item is insufficient to establish "possession" of the controlled substance. Knowledge of the presence of the item, plus control over the item or the place in which it was found, is required. Thus, in order to establish "possession" of a controlled substance, in addition to knowledge of the presence of the item, the government must establish that (a) the defendant intended to exercise control over the item or place in which it was found; (b) the defendant had the power to exercise control over the item or place in which it was found; and (c) the defendant knew that he had the power to exercise control over the item 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 the "distribution" of a controlled substance; the prosecution does not have to prove that there was a "sale" of a controlled substance.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 6 - COUNT 1: CONSPIRACY



In Count 1 of the indictment, the United States charges the defendants with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." The crime of conspiracy, as charged in Count 1 of the indictment, has four essential elements, which are the following:

One, between about January 1995 through December 1997, two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to distribute methamphetamine.

The prosecution must prove that a defendant reached an agreement or understanding with at least one other person. It makes no difference whether that person is a defendant, or named in the indictment, or otherwise charged with a crime. There is no requirement that the other conspirators be named as long as you find beyond a reasonable doubt that there were other co-conspirators. The "agreement or understanding" need not be an express or formal agreement or be in writing or cover all the details of how it is to be carried out. Nor is it necessary that the members have directly stated between themselves the details or purpose of the scheme. In determining whether the alleged agreement existed, you may consider the actions and statements of all of the alleged participants, whether they are charged as defendants or not. The agreement may be inferred from all the circumstances and the conduct of the alleged participants.



Two, the location from which the conspirators agreed to distribute methamphetamine was within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."

A "schoolyard" is defined for purposes of this offense as the real property comprising a public or private elementary school. The "schoolyard" in question here is St. Paul's Lutheran School, located at 614 Jennings, in Sioux City, Iowa. It is for you to determine whether St. Paul's Lutheran School fits the definition of a "schoolyard." School does not have to be in session nor do children need to be near or around the school at the time of the offense for the property to be a "schoolyard."

It is also for you to determine whether the location the co-conspirators agreed that the distribution would occur was within 1,000 feet of this "schoolyard." The 1,000 foot zone can be measured in a straight line from the "schoolyard," irrespective of actual pedestrian travel routes.

The prosecution does not have to prove that the co-conspirators, or any defendant, agreed, knew, or intended that the distribution would take place within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." However, the prosecution must prove that the location at which the co-conspirators agreed the distribution would take place was within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."

Evidence that distribution of methamphetamine pursuant to the conspiracy actually occurred at a location within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" is evidence from which you may, but are not required to, find that the location at which the co-conspirators agreed the distribution would take place was within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."



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

A defendant may join in an agreement or understanding without knowing all the details of the agreement or understanding, and without knowing who all the other members are. Further, it is not necessary that a defendant agree to play any particular part in carrying out the agreement or understanding. A defendant may become a member of a conspiracy even if that defendant agrees to play only a minor part in the conspiracy, as long as that defendant has an understanding of the unlawful nature of the plan and voluntarily and intentionally joins in it.

However, you should understand that merely being present at the scene of an event, or merely acting in the same way as others or merely associating with others, does not prove that a person has joined in an agreement or understanding.

In determining whether a defendant became a member of the conspiracy, you may consider only the acts and statements of that particular defendant.



Four, at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of the agreement or understanding.

Again, it is not necessary that the members have directly stated between themselves the details or purpose of the scheme, as long as a defendant has an understanding of the unlawful nature of the plan. A person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but who happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one, does not thereby become a member. Therefore, a defendant must know of the existence and purpose of the conspiracy. Without such knowledge, a defendant cannot be guilty even if his acts furthered the conspiracy.



If the prosecution has failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to a particular defendant, you must find that defendant not guilty of the crime of conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of the indictment. However, if the prosecution has proved each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to a particular defendant, you must find that defendant guilty of the crime of conspiracy as charged in Count 1 of the indictment.

To assist you in determining whether there was an agreement to commit the crime of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," you should consider the explanation of the elements of that substantive offense, as that offense is defined in Final Jury Instruction No. 9. Keep in mind that Count 1 of the indictment charges a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," not that this substantive offense was actually committed. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 7 - ACTS AND STATEMENTS OF

CO-CONSPIRATORS





If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed and that a particular defendant was one of its members, then you may consider acts knowingly done and statements knowingly made by that defendant's co-conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it as evidence pertaining to that defendant, even though they were done or made in the absence of and without the knowledge of that defendant. This includes acts done or statements made before that defendant joined the conspiracy, for a person who knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally joins an existing conspiracy is responsible for all of the conduct of the co-conspirators from the beginning of the conspiracy. However, acts and statements that were made before the conspiracy began or after it ended are admissible only against the person making them and should not be considered by you against any other person, including any defendant who was a conspirator.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 8 - COUNT 1: "LESSER-INCLUDED

CONSPIRACY OFFENSE"



If you find a defendant not guilty of the offense of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as charged in Count 1 and explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, or if, after all reasonable efforts, you are unable to reach a verdict on that conspiracy charge, you should record that decision on the verdict form and go on to consider whether the defendant in question is guilty only of the "lesser-included offense" of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine under this instruction.

The crime of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine has three essential elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to a defendant for you to find that defendant guilty of this "lesser-included conspiracy offense":

One, between about January 1995 through December 1997, two or more persons reached an agreement or came to an understanding to distribute methamphetamine.

The explanation of element one in Final Jury Instruction No. 6 also applies to this element of this offense.



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

The explanation of element three in Final Jury Instruction No. 6 also applies to this element of this offense.



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

The explanation of element four in Final Jury Instruction No. 6 also applies to this element of this offense.



Note that the second element of the offense of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as stated in Final Instruction No. 6, is not an element of the "lesser-included offense" of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. If the prosecution has failed to prove these three essential elements of the crime of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt against a particular defendant, you must also find that defendant not guilty of this "lesser-included conspiracy offense."

To assist you in determining whether there was an agreement to commit the crime of distribution of methamphetamine, you should consider the explanation of the elements of that substantive offense, as that offense is defined in Final Jury Instruction No. 11. Keep in mind that this "lesser-included conspiracy offense" to Count 1 of the indictment charges a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, not that the offense of distribution of methamphetamine was actually committed. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

Final Jury Instruction No. 7 on acts and statements of co-conspirators is also applicable to this "lesser-included conspiracy offense."

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 9 - COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4:

DISTRIBUTION OF METHAMPHETAMINE

WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A "SCHOOLYARD"





Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment charge the defendants with separate crimes of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." The crime of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" has three essential elements, which are the following:

One, on or about the date alleged, the defendant intentionally distributed a controlled substance to another.

Count 2 alleges that the defendants distributed 29.87 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 17, 1997. Count 3 alleges that the defendants distributed 53.06 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 22, 1997. Count 4 alleges that the defendants distributed 27.90 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 29, 1997

The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant distributed the amount or quantity of methamphetamine charged in the indictment. It need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he distributed a measurable amount of a controlled substance. Methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance. You must ascertain whether or not the substance in question was in fact methamphetamine. In so doing, you may consider all of the evidence in the case that may aid in the determination of that issue.

"Intent" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. "Distribution" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 5.



Two, at the time of the distribution, the defendant knew that what he was distributing was a controlled substance.

"Knowledge" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. Additionally, the defendant need not know what the controlled substance is if he knows he is distributing some controlled substance.



Three, the distribution took place within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."

A "schoolyard" is defined for purposes of this offense as the real property comprising a public or private elementary school. The "schoolyard" in question here is St. Paul's Lutheran School, located at 614 Jennings, in Sioux City, Iowa. It is for you to determine whether St. Paul's Lutheran School fits the definition of a "schoolyard." School does not have to be in session nor do children need to be near or around the school at the time of the offense for the property to be a "schoolyard."

It is also for you to determine whether the distribution took place at a location within 1,000 feet of this "schoolyard." The 1,000 foot zone can be measured in a straight line from the "schoolyard," irrespective of actual pedestrian travel routes.

The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant knew or intended that the distribution would take place within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." However, the prosecution must prove that the location at which the distribution took place was within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."



For you to find a defendant guilty of personally committing a particular count of this crime, the prosecution must prove all three of these essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to that count and that defendant; otherwise, you must find that defendant not guilty of personally committing that count of this offense.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 10 - "AIDING AND ABETTING"

ALTERNATIVE TO COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4





Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment also charge "aiding and abetting" the distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard." A person may also be found guilty of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," even if that person did not personally do every act constituting the offense charged, if that person aided and abetted the commission of the offense.

For you to find a particular defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as an alternative under Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, on or about the date of the offense alleged, the defendant knew that the distribution of methamphetamine which occurred or was going to occur within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" was being committed or was going to be committed.

"Knowledge" was defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 4. For you to find a defendant guilty of aiding and abetting a particular count of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of personally committing that count, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, were committed by some person or persons. However, it is not necessary that the other person or persons be convicted or even identified.



Two, the defendant knowingly acted in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, or aiding the distribution of methamphetamine which occurred within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard."

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 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.



Three, the defendant knew that what was being distributed or going to be distributed was a controlled substance.

"Knowledge" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. Additionally, the aider and abettor need not know what the controlled substance is if he knows that the person personally committing the offense is distributing some controlled substance.



Four, the defendant intended that some or all of the methamphetamine would be distributed to another person.

"Intent" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. "Distribution" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 5.



If the prosecution has failed to prove all four of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to a particular defendant on a particular count, you cannot find that defendant guilty of that count under this "aiding and abetting" alternative.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 11 - COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4:

"LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSE" OF DISTRIBUTION

OF METHAMPHETAMINE





If you find a defendant not guilty of a particular offense charged in Counts 2 through 4, under both the personal commission alternative, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, and the "aiding and abetting" alternative, as explained in Final Jury Instructions No. 10, or if, after all reasonable efforts, you are unable to reach a verdict on those alternatives on a particular count, you should record that decision on the verdict form and go on to consider whether the defendant in question is guilty only of the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine under this instruction.

The crime of distribution of methamphetamine has two essential elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to a defendant for you to find that defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense":

One, on or about the date alleged, the defendant intentionally distributed a controlled substance to another.

Count 2 alleges that the defendants distributed 29.87 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 17, 1997. Count 3 alleges that the defendants distributed 53.06 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 22, 1997. Count 4 alleges that the defendants distributed 27.90 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine on or about October 29, 1997

The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant distributed the amount or quantity of methamphetamine charged in the indictment. It need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he distributed a measurable amount of a controlled substance. Methamphetamine is a Schedule II controlled substance. You must ascertain whether or not the substance in question was in fact methamphetamine. In so doing, you may consider all of the evidence in the case that may aid in the determination of that issue.

"Intent" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. "Distribution" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 5.



Two, at the time of the distribution, the defendant knew that what he was distributing was a controlled substance.

"Knowledge" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. Additionally, the defendant need not know what the controlled substance is if he knows he is distributing some controlled substance.



Note that the third element of the offense of distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard," as stated in Final Instruction No. 9, is not an element of the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine. If the prosecution has failed to prove both of the essential elements of the crime of distribution of methamphetamine beyond a reasonable doubt against a particular defendant on a particular count, you must also find that defendant not guilty of personally committing this "lesser-included offense" on that count.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 12 - "AIDING AND ABETTING"

ALTERNATIVE TO THE "LESSER-INCLUDED OFFENSES"

TO COUNTS 2 THROUGH 4





In addition to considering whether a defendant personally committed a "lesser-included offense" on Counts 2 through 4, you must also consider whether that defendant aided and abetted the commission of a "lesser-included offense." A person may also be found guilty of distribution of methamphetamine, even if that person did not personally do every act constituting that "lesser-included offense," if that person aided and abetted the commission of the "lesser-included offense."

For you to find a particular defendant guilty of aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine, as an alternative to personally committing the "lesser-included offense" under Counts 2 through 4 of the indictment, the prosecution must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

One, on or about the date of the offense alleged, the defendant knew that the distribution of methamphetamine was being committed or was going to be committed.

"Knowledge" was defined for you in Final Jury Instruction No. 4. For you to find a defendant guilty of aiding and abetting a particular offense of distribution of methamphetamine, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the essential elements of personally committing that "lesser-included offense," as explained above in Final Jury Instruction No. 11, were committed by some person or persons. However, it is not necessary that the other person or persons be convicted or even identified.



Two, the defendant knowingly acted in some way for the purpose of causing, encouraging, or aiding the distribution of methamphetamine.

The explanation of element two in Final Jury Instruction No. 10 also applies to this element of this offense.



Three, the defendant knew that what was being distributed or going to be distributed was a controlled substance.

The explanation of element three in Final Jury Instruction No. 10 also applies to this element of this offense.



Four, the defendant intended that some or all of the methamphetamine would be distributed to another person.

"Intent" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 4. "Distribution" was defined for you in Final Instruction No. 5.



If the prosecution has failed to prove all four of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt as to a particular defendant on a particular "lesser-included offense," you cannot find that defendant guilty of "aiding and abetting" the "lesser-included offense" alternative to that particular count of the indictment.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 13 - IMPEACHMENT AND

TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN WITNESSES





In Preliminary Instruction No. 9, 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.

You should consider certain testimony with greater caution and care than that of other witnesses:

1. You have heard evidence that witness Terrance Joseph Zimmer made a plea agreement with the prosecution and hopes to receive a reduction in sentence in return for his cooperation with the prosecution in this case. The agreement a witness has entered into with the U.S. Attorney's Office provides that in return for the witness's "substantial assistance," the government may file a request for a reduction in the witness's sentence. The judge has no power to reduce a sentence for such a witness for substantial assistance unless the U.S. Attorney files a motion requesting such a reduction. If the motion for reduction of sentence for substantial assistance is filed by the U.S. Attorney, then it is up to the judge to decide whether to reduce the sentence of that witness at all, and if so, how much to reduce it. His testimony was received in evidence and you may consider it. You may give the testimony of this witness such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the testimony of a witness may have been influenced by a witness's hope of receiving a reduction in sentence is for you to decide.

2. You have also heard testimony from witness Terrance Joseph Zimmer that he participated in the crime charged against these defendants. His testimony was received in evidence and you may consider it. You may give the testimony of this witness such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not the testimony of a witness may have been influenced by the witness's desire to please the government or to strike a good bargain with the government about his own situation is for you to determine.

3. You have also heard evidence that, as part of his plea agreement, witness Terrance Joseph Zimmer has received certain promises of leniency from the government. His testimony was received in evidence and you may consider it. You may give his testimony such weight as you think it deserves. Whether or not a witness's testimony may have been influenced by the government's promises is for you to determine.

Finally, you cannot consider a witness's guilty plea as any evidence of the guilt of a defendant now on trial. You can consider a witness's guilty plea only for the purpose of determining how much, if at all, to rely upon his testimony.

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. 14 - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

AND BURDEN OF PROOF



Defendants Tuan Van Ung and Duy Duc Le are 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 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, each element 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 any 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. Therefore, the fact that a defendant did not testify must not be discussed or considered by you in any way when deliberating and arriving at your verdict. 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. Keep in mind that you must give separate consideration to the evidence about each individual defendant and each offense charged. Each defendant is entitled to be treated separately, and you must return a separate verdict for each defendant on each count.

FINAL INSTRUCTION NO. 15 - REASONABLE DOUBT



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. 16 - 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 a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that defendant should have your vote for a not guilty verdict. If all of you reach the same conclusion, then the verdict of the jury must be not guilty. Of course, the opposite also applies. If, in your individual judgment, the evidence establishes a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then your vote should be for a verdict of guilty, and if all of you reach that conclusion, then the verdict of the jury must be guilty. As I instructed you earlier, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged.

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. 17 - 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 a defendant is guilty, the sentence to be imposed is my responsibility. You may not consider punishment of Tuan Van Ung or Duy Duc Le in any way in deciding whether the prosecution has proved its case against them 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 1st day of June, 2000.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

WESTERN DIVISION





UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

No. CR 99-4002-MWB

vs.



VERDICT FORM

TUAN VAN UNG and DUY DUC LE, a/k/a "Trang,"
Defendants.

____________________





TUAN VAN UNG

As to the crimes charged in the indictment, we, the Jury, unanimously find defendant Tuan Van Ung not guilty or guilty, as follows:





COUNT DESCRIPTION VERDICT
Count 1: Conspiracy, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 1, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 1, as this offense is explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included conspiracy offense" of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8?







____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Count 2: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 17, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 2, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 2, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 2, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____
Count 3: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 22, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 3, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 3, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 3, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____
Count 4: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 29, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 4, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 4, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 4, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





_____ Not Guilty

_____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____




________________

Date



_______________________________

Foreperson



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



DUY DUC LE

As to the crimes charged in the indictment, we, the Jury, unanimously find defendant Duy Duc Le, also known as "Trang," not guilty or guilty, as follows:





COUNT DESCRIPTION VERDICT
Count 1: Conspiracy, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 1, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 1, as this offense is explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 6, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included conspiracy offense" of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 8?







____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

Count 2: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 17, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 2, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 2, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 2, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____
Count 3: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 22, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 3, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 3, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 3, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____
Count 4: Distribution of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a "schoolyard" on or about October 29, 1997 ____ Not Guilty

____ Guilty

____ No Verdict

If you found this defendant guilty on Count 4, mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this offense.
Personally committing the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10

_____
If you found this defendant not guilty of Count 4, or if you were unable to reach a verdict as to this defendant on Count 4, under either the personal commission alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 9, or the aiding and abetting alternative explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 10, what is your verdict on the "lesser-included offense" of distribution of methamphetamine, as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11?





_____ Not Guilty

_____ Guilty

If you found this defendant guilty on this "lesser-included offense," mark the alternative or alternatives on which you unanimously find this defendant guilty of this "lesser-included offense."
Personally committing the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 11



_____
Aiding and abetting the commission of the "lesser-included offense," as explained in Final Jury Instruction No. 12

_____




________________

Date



_______________________________

Foreperson



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror



_______________________________

Juror