**IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT**

**FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE**

**WESTERN DIVISION**

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CRIMINAL NO.

vs.

Defendant.

**JURY INSTRUCTIONS**

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have now come to the point in the
case when it is my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you
must follow and apply in deciding this case. When I have finished, you
will go to the jury room and begin your deliberations.

It will be your duty to decide whether the government has proved beyond
a reasonable doubt the specific facts necessary to find the defendant
guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment.

You must make your decision only on the basis of the testimony and other
evidence presented here during the trial; and you must not be influenced
in any way by either sympathy or prejudice for or against the defendant
or the government.

You must also follow the law as I explain it to you whether you agree
with that law or not; and you must follow all of my instructions as a
whole. You must not single out, or disregard, any of the Court\'s
instructions on the law.

The indictment or formal charge against the defendant is not evidence of
guilt. The defendant is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does
not require a defendant to prove his innocence or produce any evidence
at all. The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must find the
defendant not guilty.

[Burden of Proof]{.underline}

While the government\'s burden of proof is a strict or heavy burden, it
is not necessary that the defendant\'s guilt be proved beyond all
possible doubt. It is only required that the government\'s proof exclude
any \"reasonable doubt\" concerning the defendant\'s guilt.

A \"reasonable doubt\" is a real doubt, based upon reason and common
sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in
the case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a
convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it
without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. If you are
convinced that the defendant has been proved guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, say so. If you are not convinced that a defendant\'s guilt has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, say so.

The defendant has been charged with a crime. The fact that has been
charged is not evidence of his guilt. It is your duty to separately
consider the evidence that relates to the charge, and to return a
verdict based on the evidence. You must decide whether the government
has presented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
guilty of the crime charged.

If, after careful and impartial consideration of all evidence in the
case, you are convinced that the government has proven its case beyond a
reasonable doubt, within the meaning of the law, as outlined in these
instructions, you must find him guilty. If the government has failed to
carry that burden, you must find the defendant not guilty. If you view
the evidence as equally balanced, you must find the defendant not
guilty, since the government bears the burden of proof.

As stated earlier, you must consider only the evidence that I have
admitted in the case. The term \"evidence\" includes the testimony of
the witnesses, the exhibits admitted in the record and any facts of
which the court has taken judicial notice. Remember that anything the
lawyers say is not evidence in the case. It is your own recollection and
interpretation of the evidence that controls. What the lawyers say is
not binding upon you.

In considering the evidence you may make deductions and reach
conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to make; and you
should not be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or
circumstantial.

Except for my instructions to you, you should disregard anything I may
have said in arriving at your own decision concerning the facts.

[Direct and Circumstantial Evidence]{.underline}

\(1\) There are two types of evidence from which you, a jury, may
properly find a defendant guilty of a crime.

\(2\) Direct evidence is simply evidence like the testimony of an
eyewitness which, if you believe it, directly proves a fact. If a
witness testified that he saw it raining outside, and you believed him,
that would be direct evidence that it was raining.

\(3\) Circumstantial evidence is simply a chain of circumstances that
indirectly proves a fact. If someone walked into the courtroom wearing a
raincoat covered with drops of water and carrying a wet umbrella, that
would be circumstantial evidence from which you could conclude that it
was raining.

\(4\) It is your job to decide how much weight to give the direct and
circumstantial evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight
that you should give to either one, or say that one is any better
evidence than the other. You should consider all the evidence, both
direct and circumstantial, and give it whatever weight you believe it
deserves.

[Number of Witnesses Credibility]{.underline}

Now, in saying that you must [consider]{.underline} all of the evidence,
I do not mean that you must [accept]{.underline} all of the evidence as
true or accurate. You should decide whether you believe what each
witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making that
decision, you may believe or disbelieve any witness in whole or in part.
Also, the number of witnesses testifying concerning any particular
dispute is not controlling. You may decide that the testimony of a
smaller number of witnesses concerning any fact in dispute is more
believable than the testimony of a larger number of witnesses to the
contrary.

In deciding whether you believe or do not believe any witness, I suggest
that you ask yourself a few questions: Did the person impress you as one
who was telling the truth? Did he or she have any particular reason not
to tell the truth? Did he or she have a personal interest in the outcome
of the case? Did the witness seem to have a good memory? Did the witness
have the opportunity and ability to observe accurately the things he or
she testified about? Did he or she appear to understand the questions
clearly and answer them directly? Did the witness\'s testimony differ
from the testimony of other witnesses?

You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence tending to prove
that the witness testified falsely concerning some important fact; or,
whether there was evidence that at some other time the witness said or
did something, or failed to say or do something, which was different
from the testimony he or she gave before you during the trial.

You should keep in mind, of course, that a simple mistake by a witness
does not necessarily mean that the witness was not telling the truth as
he or she remembers it, because people naturally tend to forget some
things or remember other things inaccurately. So, if a witness has made
a misstatement, you need to consider whether that misstatement was
simply an innocent lapse of memory or an intentional falsehood; and that
may depend on whether it has to do with an important fact or with only
an unimportant detail.

[Defendant\'s Failure to Testify]{.underline}

\(1\) A defendant has an absolute right not to testify or present
evidence. The fact that he did not testify or present any evidence
cannot be considered by you in any way. Do not even discuss it in your
deliberations.

\(2\) Remember that it is up to the Government to prove the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not up to the defendant to prove
that he is innocent.

[Law Enforcement Witnesses]{.underline}

You have heard the testimony of law enforcement officials. The fact that
a witness may be employed by the city or county government as a law
enforcement official does not mean that his or her testimony is
necessarily deserving of more or less consideration or greater or lesser
weight than that of an ordinary witness.

It is your decision, after reviewing all the evidence, whether to accept
the testimony of the law enforcement witnesses and to give to that
testimony whatever weight, if any, you find it deserves.

[Expert Witness]{.underline}

\(1\) You have heard the testimony of , expert witness(es). An expert
witness has special knowledge or experience that allows the witness to
give an opinion.

\(2\) You do not have to accept an expert\'s opinion. In deciding how
much weight to give it, you should consider the witness\'s
qualifications and how he or she reached his or her conclusions.

\(3\) Remember that you alone decide how much of a witness\'s testimony
to believe, and how much weight it deserves.

[Judicial Notice]{.underline}

You are instructed that the Court has taken judicial notice of the fact
that Memphis, Tennessee, is located in the Western District of
Tennessee.

Since you are the fact finders in this case, you may accept this fact as
conclusively established.

[Purpose of Indictment]{.underline}

I told you at the outset that this case was initiated through an
indictment. An indictment is but a formal method of accusing a defendant
of a crime. It includes the government\'s theory of the case, and we
will be going over in a few minutes the substance of the indictment. The
indictment is not evidence of any kind against an accused.

The defendant has pleaded not guilty to the charges outlined in the
indictment. This plea puts in issue each of the essential elements of
the offense described in these instructions and imposes upon the
government the burden of establishing each of these elements of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt.

I will read the indictment to you once again so that you are well aware
of the charges made in the indictment.

The indictment reads: **(copy of Indictment attached)**

[Intent]{.underline}

Intent ordinarily may not be proved directly, because there is no way of
fathoming or scrutinizing the operations of the human mind. But, you may
infer the defendant\'s intent from the surrounding circumstances. You
may consider anything done or omitted by the defendant, and all facts
and circumstances in evidence which indicates his state of mind.

You may consider it reasonable to draw the inference and find that a
person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly
done or knowingly omitted. As I have said, it is entirely up to you to
decide what facts to find from the evidence.

[Knowingly]{.underline}

The word \"knowingly,\" as that term is used from time to time in these
instructions, means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally
and not because of mistake or accident.

[On or About]{.underline}

\(1\) Next, I want to say a word about the date mentioned in the
indictment.

\(2\) The indictment charges that the crime happened Aon or about@ The
Government does not have to prove that the crime happened on that exact
date. But the Government must prove that the crime happened reasonably
close to that date.

I caution you, members of the jury, that you are here to determine from
the evidence in this case whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty
of the counts in the indictment. The defendant is on trial only for the
specific offenses alleged in the indictment.

Also, the question of punishment should never be considered by the jury
in any way in deciding the case. If the defendant is convicted, the
matter of punishment is for the judge to determine.

You are here to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused
defendant from the evidence in this case. You are not called upon to
return a verdict as to the guilt or innocence of any other person or
persons. You must determine whether or not the evidence in the case
convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused
without regard to any belief you may have about guilt or innocence of
any other person or persons.

Any verdict you reach in the jury room, whether guilty or not guilty,
must be unanimous. In other words, to return a verdict you must all
agree. Your deliberations will be secret; you will never have to explain
your verdict to anyone.

It is your duty as jurors to discuss the case with one another in an
effort to reach an agreement if you can do so. Each of you must decide
the case for yourself, but only after full consideration of the evidence
with the other members of the jury. While you are discussing the case,
do not hesitate to re-examine your own opinion and change your mind if
you become convinced that you were wrong. But do not give up your honest
beliefs solely because the others think differently or merely to get the
case over with.

Remember, that in a very real way you are judges - - judges of the
facts. Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the
case.

When you go to the jury room, you should first select one of your
members to act as your foreperson. The foreperson will preside over your
deliberations and will speak for you here in court.

A form of verdict has been prepared for your convenience. The verdict
form will be placed in a folder and handed to you by the Marshal. At any
time that you are not deliberating (i.e., when at lunch or during a
break in deliberations), the folder and verdict form should be delivered
to the Marshal who will deliver it to the courtroom clerk for
safekeeping.

\[EXPLAIN VERDICT\]

You will take the verdict form to the jury room and when you have
reached unanimous agreement, you will have your foreperson fill in the
verdict form, date and sign it, and then return to the courtroom.

If you should desire to communicate with me at any time, please write
down your message or question and pass the note to the Marshal who will
bring it to my attention. I will then respond as promptly as possible,
either in writing or by having you returned to the courtroom so that I
can address you orally. I caution you, however, with regard to any
message or question you might send, that **you should not tell me your
numerical division at the time**.

If you feel a need see the exhibits which are not being sent to you for
further examination, advise the Marshal and I will take up your request
at that time.

\[ANY JURY ALTERNATES NOT ALREADY EXCUSED,

SHOULD BE EXCUSED AT THIS TIME\].

You may now retire to begin your deliberations.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, Case No.

vs.

Defendant.

**VERDICT**

We, the jury, on the charge in the indictment for our verdict say:

We find the defendant, , as to the charge in the indictment:

.

(Not Guilty) or (Guilty)

DATE FOREPERSON