CITIZENS’ GRAND JURY BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

#JURY INSTRUCTIONS

INTRODUCTION

(1) Members of the jury, now it is time for you to be instructed about the law you must follow in
deciding whether the criminal charges are proper. State or federal law does not bind the Citizens’
Grand Jury. Ethics, morality and justice bind it.

(2) I will start by explaining your duties and the general rules that apply in every criminal case.

(3) Then I will explain the elements of the crimes that the Defendant committed.

(4) Then I will explain some rules that you must use in evaluating particular testimony and proof.

(5) And last, I will explain the rules that you must follow during your deliberations concerning
whether the criminal chargers are proper.

(6) Please listen very carefully to everything I say.

JURORS’ DUTIES

(1) You have two main duties as jurors. The first one is to decide what the facts are from the
proof that you saw and heard here today. Deciding what the facts are is your job, not mine, and
nothing I have said or done during this proceeding was meant to influence your decision about
the facts in any way.

(2) Your second job is to take the law that I give you, apply it to the facts, and decide if the
Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor has shown that there is probable cause to bring the criminal
charges against the Defendant.

(3) It is my job to instruct you about the law, and you are bound by the oath you took at the beginning of the proceeding to follow the instructions that I give you,
even if you personally disagree with one or more of them. All the instructions are important, and
you should consider them together as a whole.

(4) Do your jobs fairly. Do not let any bias, sympathy or prejudice that you may feel for or
against either side influence your decision in any way.

BURDEN OF PROOF – PROBABLE CAUSE

(1) “The grand jury sits not to determine guilt or innocence, but to assess whether there is
adequate basis for bringing a criminal charge. It is the grand jury’s function not to inquire upon
what foundation the charge may be denied, or otherwise to try the suspect’s defenses, but only to
examine upon what foundation the charge is made by the prosecutor.” United States v. Williams,
504 U.S. 36, 51-52 (1992). The Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor does not have to present
substantial exculpatory evidence. “[T]he grand jury can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because the grand jury wants assurance that the law is not being
violated.” Id. at *8.

(2) As you know, the Defendant has not pleaded to the crimes charged in the indictment.
The indictment is not any proof at all of guilt. It is just the formal way that the Citizens’ Grand
Jury Prosecutor tells the defendant what crimes he is accused of committing. It does not even
raise any suspicion of guilt.

(3) No defendant has any obligation to present any proof at all, or to prove to you in any way that
he is innocent. It is up to the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor to show that the indictment is
proper and that there is probable cause for bringing such criminal charges. You must find that no
criminal charges should be brought against the Defendant if the Citizens’ Grand Jury
Prosecutor has not shown you that there is a sufficient reason upon the facts to believe that these
crimes have been committed.

(4) The Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor must show every element, that is, -- every important
part -- of the crimes charged only by the low threshold of “by probable cause.”

(5) Showing “probable cause” means a sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a
crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime. Probable cause is
often subjective but must exist prior to arrest, search or seizure.

(6) If you are convinced that the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor, through the proof, has shown
by probable cause that the Indictment is proper, then you must vote to secure the indictment. If
you are not convinced by probable cause, then you must vote not to initiate the charges against the
Defendant.

PROOF DEFINED

(1) You must make your decision based only on the proof that you saw and heard here. Do not
let rumors, suspicions, or anything else that you may have seen or heard outside of this
proceeding influence your decision in any way.

(2) Citizens’ Grand Juries are not constrained to consider only evidence which would be
admissible into a citizens’ court or even a federal or state court. Even hearsay testimony and
documentary proof may be considered weighed. United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 50
(1992).

(3) The Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor’s statements and arguments are not proof. His questions
and objections are not proof. The Indictment is not proof. Comments and questions are not proof.
Do not speculate about what some witness might have said or what some exhibit might have
shown. Such things are not proof, and you are bound by your oath not to let them influence your
decision in any way.

(4) Make your decision based only on the proof put forth by the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor,
as I have defined it here, and nothing else.

CONSIDERATION OF PROOF

You should use your common sense in weighing the proof. Consider it in light of your everyday
experience with people and events, and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves. If your
experience tells you that certain proof reasonably leads to a conclusion, you are free to reach that
conclusion.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROOF

(1) Now, we have already discussed the terms “direct proof” and “circumstantial proof” for the
purposes of the Indictment.

(2) Direct proof is simply proof like the testimony of any eyewitness which, if you believe it,
directly proves a fact. If a witness testified that he saw someone walking across a field and you
believed him, that would be direct proof that such a thing had happened.

(3) Circumstantial proof is simply a collection of circumstances that indirectly proves a fact. If a
witness said that he saw fresh footprints in newly fallen snow, that would be circumstantial proof
from which you could conclude that someone had recently been walking there.

(4) Legally, there is no difference between direct and circumstantial proof. The law does not say
that one is necessarily any better proof than the other. You should consider all the proof, both
direct and circumstantial, and give it whatever weight you believe it deserves.

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

(1) Part of your job as jurors is to decide how believable each witness was. This is your job, not
mine. It is up to you to decide if a witness’ testimony was believable, and how much weight you
think it deserves. You are free to believe everything that a witness said, or only part of it, or you
can believe none of it at all (even if the witness has not been contradicted). But you should, of
course, act reasonably and carefully in making these decisions.

(2) Let me suggest some things for you to consider in evaluating each witness’ testimony.

(A) Ask yourself if the witness was able to clearly see or hear the events. Sometimes even an honest witness may not have been able to clearly see or hear what was happening, and may make a mistake.

(B) Ask yourself how good the witness’ memory seemed to be. Did the witness seem able to accurately remember what happened?

(C) Ask yourself if there was anything else that may have interfered with the witnesses’ ability to perceive or remember the events.

(D) Ask yourself how the witness looked and acted while testifying. Did the witness seem honestly to be trying to tell you what happened? Or did the witness seem to be evasive, confused or even lying?

(E) Ask yourself if the witness had any relationship to either side of the case, or anything to gain or lose that might influence the witness’ testimony. Ask yourself if the witness had any bias, or prejudice, or reason for testifying that might cause the witness to lie or to
slant testimony in favor of one side or the other.

(F) Ask yourself if the witness testified inconsistently, or if the witness said or did anything off the stand that is not consistent with what the witness said while testifying. If you think that the witness was inconsistent, ask yourself if this makes the witness’
testimony less believable. Sometimes it may; other times it may not. For example, you might consider whether the inconsistency was understandable or explainable. You might also ask yourself if it seemed like an insignificant or common m is take, or if it seemed to indicate a deliberate attempt to mislead.

(G) Finally, ask yourself how believable the witness' testimony was in light of all the other proof. Was the witness’ testimony supported or was it contradicted by other proof that you found believable? If you think that a witness’ testimony was contradicted by
other proof, keep in mind that people sometimes do forget things, and that even two honest people who witness the same event may not describe it exactly the same way.

(3) These are only some of the things that you may consider in deciding how believable or reliable each witness was. You may also consider other things that you think shed light on the witness’ believability. Use your common sense and your everyday experience in dealing with other people. And then decide what testimony you believe, and how much weight -- how much significance -- you think it deserves.

NUMBER OF WITNESSES

(1) One more point about the witnesses. Sometimes jurors wonder if the number of witnesses
who testified on a particular point, or on one side or the other, makes any difference. It does not.

(2) Do not make any decisions based only on the number of witnesses who testified. What is more important is how believable the witnesses were, and how much weight you think their testimony deserves. Concentrate on that, not the numbers.

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE: INTRODUCTION

(1) That concludes the part of my instructions explaining your duties and the general rules that
apply in every criminal indictment. In a moment, I will explain the significant elements of the crimes that the defendant is accused of committing.

(2) Your job is limited to deciding whether the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor has shown by
probable cause that the criminal charges should be brought against the Defendant.

Also keep in mind that whether anyone else should be prosecuted and convicted for this crime is not a proper matter for you to consider. The possible
guilt of others is no defense to a criminal charge. Your job is to decide if the Citizens’ Grand
Jury Prosecutor has shown by probable cause that the criminal charges against the Defendant have merit. Do not let the possible guilt of others influence your decision in any way.

COUNT 1
(Citation of Statute)

In order to find that the Indictment should be brought against the Defendant, you must find that the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor showed by probable cause each of the following elements:

(Listed by Special Prosecutor)

You must find that the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor has shown by probable cause all of these things in order to find that the criminal charges can be brought against the Defendant.

“Criminal intent” is defined as a volitional act
done by one who knows or should reasonably be aware that his conduct is wrongful.

“Corruptly” means to act knowingly and dishonestly, with specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity of a proceeding. “Corruptly” means nothing more than an intent to obstruct the proceeding. A corrupt intent may be defined as the intent to obtain an improper advantage for oneself or someone else,
inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.

EXPERIMENTS, RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION

(1) Remember that you must make your decision based only on the proof that you saw and heard
here. This means that you must not try to gather any information about the case on your own
while you are deliberating.

(2) For example, do not conduct any experiments inside or outside the jury room; do not bring
any books, like a dictionary, or anything else with you to help you with your deliberations; do
not conduct any independent research, reading or investigation about the case; and do not visit
any of the places that were mentioned during this proceeding.

(3) Make your decision based only on the proof that you saw and heard here.

DUTY TO DELIBERATE

(1) Now that all the proof and arguments are complete, you are free to talk about the case. In
fact, it is your duty to talk with each other about the proof, and to make every reasonable effort
you can to reach unanimous agreement. Talk with each other, listen carefully and respectfully to
each other's views, and keep an open mind as you listen to what your fellow jurors have to say.
Try your best to work out your differences. Do not hesitate to change your mind if you are
convinced that other jurors are right and you are wrong.

(2) But do not ever change your mind just because other jurors see things differently, or just to get the case over with. In the end, your vote must be exactly that -- your own vote. It is important for you to reach unanimous agreement, but only if you can do so honestly and in good conscience.

(3) No one will be allowed to hear your discussions, and no record will be made of what you say.
So you should all feel free to speak your minds.

(4) Listen carefully to what everyone else has to say, and then decide for yourself if the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor has shown that there is probable cause to bring the criminal charges against the Defendant.

CITIZENS’ GRAND JURY PROSECUTOR HAS NO OPINION

Let me finish up by repeating something that I said to you earlier. Nothing that I have said or
done during this proceeding was meant to influence your decision in any way. You decide for
yourselves if the Citizens’ Grand Jury Prosecutor has shown that there is probable cause to bring
the criminal charges against the Defendant.