FUNCTION OF THE COURT

My job as the judge is to conduct this trial in an orderly, fair, and efficient manner; to rule on questions of law; and to instruct you on the law that applies in this case.

It is your duty to accept the law as I instruct you. You should consider all the instructions as a whole. You may not ignore or refuse to follow any of my instructions.
1

FUNCTION OF THE JURY

Your responsibility, as the jury, is to determine what the facts are in this case. You are the sole judges of the facts. While it is my responsibility to decide what is admitted as evidence during the trial, you alone decide what weight, if any, to give to that evidence. You alone also decide the credibility or believability of the witnesses.

You should determine the facts without prejudice, fear, sympathy, or favoritism. You should not be improperly influenced by anyones race, ethnic origin, gender, or economic status. You must decide the case solely from a fair consideration of the evidence.

You may not take anything I may have said or done during this trial as any indication of how I think you should decide this case. If you believe that I have expressed or indicated any
3

such opinion, you should ignore it. That is because the verdict in this case is solely and exclusively your responsibility.

JURYS RECOLLECTION CONTROLS

If any reference by me or the attorneys to the evidence is different from your own memory of the evidence, it is your memory that should control during your deliberations.

NATURE OF CHARGES NOT TO BE CONSIDERED

One of the questions you were asked when we were selecting this jury was whether the nature of the charges would affect your ability to reach a fair and impartial verdict. I asked you that question because you must not allow the nature of the charges to affect your verdict. You must consider only the evidence that has been

presented in this case in reaching a fair and impartial verdict.

THE GOVERNMENT AS A PARTY

You are to perform the duty of finding the facts without bias or prejudice for or against either party. You are to perform your duty as a juror with an attitude of complete fairness and impartiality. The fact that the prosecution is brought in the name of the United States of America entitles the prosecution to no greater consideration than that accorded to any other
8

party in a case. By the same token, the United States is entitled to no less consideration. All parties, whether the government or an individual, stand as equals when they appear before a court of law.

EVIDENCE IN THE CASEGENERALLY

During your deliberations, you may consider only the evidence properly admitted in this trial. The evidence in this case consists of the sworn testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits that were admitted into evidence, the facts and testimony stipulated to by the parties, and matters about which I took judicial notice. During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulatedthat is, agreedto
10

certain facts. You should consider any stipulation of fact to be undisputed evidence. During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulatedthat is, agreedto what testimony Erwin Rogers, a special agent, of the Internal Revenue Service, would have given if he had testified in this case. You should consider this stipulated testimony to be exactly what he would have said had he testified here in the courtroom.

11

During the trial I took what is called "judicial notice" of excerpts of the United States Constitution. Judicial notice can be taking of public acts, places, facts, or events that I consider to be matters of common knowledge or matters that can be determined easily through undisputed sources. As to the facts about which I took judicial notice, you may, if you choose to do so, regard those facts as proven evidence. When you consider the evidence, you are permitted to draw, from the facts that you find
12

have been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in the light of your experience.

13

EXPERT TESTIMONY Ordinarily, a witness may not testify as to his opinions or conclusions. There is an exception for expert witnesses, who are allowed to give opinions, and the reasons for them because they have become expert in some art, science, profession, or calling. In this case, there has been expert testimony concerning, among other topics, drug and chemical analysis, drug and chemical evaluation, DNA, fingerprint examination,
14

image analysis and forensic photogrammetry, and forensic pharmacology and toxicology. You are not bound by an expert's opinion. If you find that the opinion of an expert is not based on sufficient education or experience, that the reasons supporting the opinion are not sound, or that the opinion is outweighed by other evidence, you may completely or partially disregard an experts opinion. You should consider this evidence with all the other

15

evidence in the case and give it as much weight as you think it fairly deserves.

16

NUMBER OF WITNESSES

The weight of the evidence is not necessarily determined by the number of witnesses testifying for each side. Rather, you should consider all the facts and circumstances in evidence to determine which of the witnesses you believe. You might, for example, find that the testimony of a smaller number of witnesses on one side is more believable than the

17

testimony of a greater number of witnesses on the other side, or you might find the opposite.

What I have just said about the weight of the evidence not necessarily being determined by the number of witnesses testifying on one side or the other should not in any way impact your assessment of the defendant's innocence or guilt because he had no obligation to prove anything in this case and, therefore, had no obligation to call any witnesses.
18

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

There are two types of evidence from which you may determine what the facts are in this casedirect evidence and circumstantial evidence. When a witness, such as an eyewitness, asserts actual knowledge of a fact, that witnesss testimony is direct evidence. On the other hand, evidence of facts and
19

circumstances from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is circumstantial evidence.

Let me give you an example of these two types of evidence. Assume a person looked out a window and saw that snow was falling. If he later testified in court about what he had seen, his testimony would be direct evidence that snow was falling at the time he saw it happen. Assume, however, that he looked out a window and saw no snow on the ground, and then went
20

to sleep and saw snow on the ground after he awoke. His testimony about what he had seen would be circumstantial evidence that it had snowed while he was asleep.

The law says that both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable as a means of proving a fact. The law does not favor one form of evidence over another. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any particular evidence, whether it is direct or
21

circumstantial. You are permitted to give equal weight to both. Circumstantial evidence does not require a greater degree of certainty than direct evidence. In reaching a verdict in this case, you should consider all of the evidence presented, both direct and circumstantial.

22

TRANSCRIPTS OF TAPE RECORDINGS Recordings of statements made by the defendant have been received in evidence. Transcripts of these recorded conversations were furnished for your convenience and guidance as you listened to the tapes to clarify portions of the tape that may have been difficult to hear. The recordings, however, are the evidence in the case; the transcripts are not. If you notice any difference between the transcripts and the recordings, you must rely
23

only on the recordings and not the transcripts. In addition, if you cannot determine from the recording that particular words were spoken, you must disregard the transcripts as far as those words are concerned.

24

REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND TAPES During the course of this trial, a number of exhibits were admitted in evidence. Sometimes only those parts of an exhibit that are relevant to your deliberations were admitted. Where this has occurred, I have required the irrelevant parts of the statement to be blacked out or deleted. Thus, as you examine the exhibits, and you see or hear a statement where there appear to be omissions, you should consider only the
25

portions that were admitted. You should not guess as to what has been taken out.

26

INDICTMENT NOT EVIDENCE The Indictment that you have heard about is merely the formal way of accusing a person of a crime. You must not consider the indictment as evidence of any kindin other words, you may not consider it as any evidence of the defendants guilt or draw any inference of guilt from it.

27

STATEMENTS OF COUNSEL

The statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. They are only intended to assist you in understanding the evidence.

28

INADMISSIBLE AND STRICKEN EVIDENCE The lawyers in this case sometimes objected when the other side asked a question, made an argument, or offered evidence that the objecting lawyer believed was not proper. You must not hold such objections against the lawyer who made them or the party that lawyer represents. It is the lawyers' responsibility to object to evidence that they believe is not admissible.

29

If, during the course of the trial, I sustained an objection to a lawyer's question, you should ignore the question, and you must not speculate as to what the answer would have been. If, after a witness answered a question, I ruled that the answer should be stricken, you should ignore both the question and the answer and they should play no part in your deliberations.

30

QUESTION NOT EVIDENCE

Sometimes a lawyers question suggested the existence of a fact, but the lawyers question alone is not evidence. Whether something is in evidence depends on the witnesss answer to the lawyers question. For example, the lawyer may ask, The light was green, wasnt it? and the witness answers, No. At that point, standing alone, there is no evidence that the light was green. If, on the other hand, the witness
31

answers, Yes, there would be evidence that the light was green.

32

QUESTIONS BY JURORS

During the trial, I permitted you to ask questions to develop information you considered important. Please recall my prior instruction that if I did not ask a question that any of you submitted, it was because I decided that the question was not proper. Therefore, you must disregard any questions submitted by you that I did not ask in open court, and you must

33

not speculate or guess as to what the answer would have been to your proposed question.

34

BURDEN OF PROOF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

Every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial unless and until the government has proven he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant throughout the trial. The law does
35

not require the defendant to prove his innocence or to produce any evidence at all. If you find that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a particular offense with which the defendant is charged, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty of that particular offense. On the other hand, if you find that the government has failed to prove any element of a particular offense with which the defendant is charged beyond a reasonable doubt,

36

it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty of that offense.

37

REASONABLE DOUBT

The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not, or, in some cases, that its truth is highly probable. In criminal cases such as this one, the governments proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, as the name implies, is a
38

doubt based on reasona doubt for which you have a reason based upon the evidence or lack of evidence in the case. If, after careful, honest, and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendants guilt, then you have a reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the
39

graver or more important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based on reason. The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty. Its burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

40

CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS

In determining whether the government has established the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, you must consider and weigh the testimony of all the witnesses who have appeared before you.

You are the sole judges of the credibility or believability of the witnesses. In other words, you alone are to determine whether to believe
41

any witness and the extent to which any witness should be believed.

In reaching a conclusion as to the credibility or believability of any witness, you may consider any matter that may have a bearing on the subject. You may consider the demeanor and the behavior of the witness on the witness stand; the witnesss manner of testifying; whether the witness impresses you as a truthful person; whether the witness impresses you as
42

having an accurate memory and recollection; whether the witness has any motive for not telling the truth; whether the witness had a full opportunity to observe the matters about which he has testified; whether the witness has any interest in the outcome of this case, or friendship or hostility toward other people concerned with this case.

Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness, or between the

43

testimony of different witnesses, may or may not cause you to discredit such testimony. Two or more persons witnessing an incident or transaction may see or hear it differently; an innocent mis-recollection, like a failure of recollection, is not an uncommon experience. In weighing the effect of the inconsistency or discrepancy, always consider whether it pertains to a matter of important or unimportant detail, and whether the inconsistency or discrepancy

44

results from innocent error or intentional falsehood.

You may consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness, or the probability or improbability, of the testimony of a witness in determining whether to accept it as true and accurate. You may consider whether the witness has been contradicted or supported by other credible evidence.

45

If you believe that any witness has shown himself or herself to be biased or prejudiced, for or against either side in this trial, you may consider and determine whether such bias or prejudice has colored the testimony of the witness so as to affect the desire and capability of that witness to tell the truth.

You should give the testimony of each witness such weight as in your judgment it is fairly entitled to receive.
46

IMPEACHMENT BY PROOF OF CONVICTION OF A CRIME WITNESS

You have heard evidence that Kirk Radomski has been convicted of a crime. You may consider this conviction only in evaluating the credibility of his testimony in this case.

47

WITNESS WITH A PLEA AGREEMENT/IMPEACHMENT BY PROOF OF PROBATION

You have heard evidence that Kirk Radomski previously entered into a plea agreement with the government pursuant to which Mr. Radomski agreed to testify truthfully in a separate case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and to cooperate with Senator George Mitchell in
48

his investigation and the government agreed to forgo filing additional charges against Mr. Radomski and to inform his sentencing judge of the nature and extent of Mr. Radomski's cooperation. The government is permitted to enter into this kind of plea agreement.

You also heard evidence that the plea agreement has concluded, Mr. Radomski has been sentenced in that case, and he is currently serving a sentence of probation. You may
49

consider all of these circumstances when deciding whether Mr. Radomski has a bias in favor of the government that has motivated him to testify falsely against the defendant. The testimony of a witness who has entered into a plea agreement should be considered with caution. You should give the testimony as much weight as in your judgment it deserves.

50

EVALUATION OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT OF A WITNESS

You have heard evidence that some witnesses made statements on an earlier occasion and that these statements may be inconsistent with the witnesss testimony here at trial. It is for you to decide whether the witness made such a statement and whether in fact it
51

was inconsistent with the witness's testimony presented here in court. The law treats prior inconsistent statements differently depending on the circumstances in which they were made. I will now explain how you should evaluate those statements.

You have heard evidence that Brian McNamee, Eileen McNamee, Darrin Fletcher, Anthony Corso and Kirk Radomski made statements on an earlier occasion and that their
52

statements may be inconsistent with their testimony here at trial. It is for you to decide whether the witnesses made such statements and whether in fact they were inconsistent with the respective witness's testimony during this trial. If you find such an inconsistency, you may consider the earlier statement in judging the credibility of the witness, but you may not consider it as evidence that what was said in the earlier statement was true.

53

You have also heard evidence that Brian McNamee and Anthony Corso earlier made statements under oath, subject to the penalty of perjury at a prior proceeding and that their statements may be inconsistent with their testimony here at trial. If you find that the respective witnesss earlier statement is inconsistent with the witness's testimony here in court, you may consider this inconsistency in judging the credibility of the witness. You also may consider the earlier statement as evidence
54

that what was said in the earlier statement was true.

55

EVALUATION OF PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENT OF A WITNESS

You have heard evidence that Brian McNamee and Eileen McNamee made statements on earlier occasions and that these statements may be consistent with their testimony here at trial. These earlier statements were brought to your attention both to help you
56

in evaluating the credibility or believability of the witness and as evidence in this case. In other words, if you find that the earlier statements are consistent with the witness's present testimony in court, you may consider these consistencies both in judging the credibility or believability of the witness's testimony presented here at trial and as proof that what was said in the earlier statement was true.

57

It is for you to decide whether Brian McNamee and Eileen McNamee made statements on an earlier occasion and whether they were in fact consistent with their testimony presented during this trial.

58

TESTIMONY OF WITNESS WITH PROFFER AGREEMENT

You have heard evidence that Brian McNamee entered into a proffer agreement with the government. Under the proffer agreement Brian McNamee agreed to make statements to the government that the government agreed would not be used directly against him; the government could, however, use the facts in the proffer to develop their investigation. You
59

should consider whether a witness who realizes that he may obtain his own freedom, receive a benefit, or avoid prosecution by incriminating another may have a motive to lie. However, you may also consider that Brian McNamee is under the same obligation to tell the truth as is any other witness, because the proffer agreements do not protect him against a prosecution for perjury or false statement, should he lie under oath.

60

The testimony of a witness to whom immunity has been granted should be considered with caution. You should give the testimony as much weight as in your judgment it deserves.

61

FEDERAL AGENT'S TESTIMONY

A law enforcement officers testimony should be evaluated by you just as any other evidence in the case. In evaluating the officers credibility or believability, you should use the same guidelines that you apply to the testimony of any witness. In no event should you give either greater or lesser weight to the testimony

62

of any witness merely because the witness is a law enforcement officer.

63

RIGHT OF DEFENDANT NOT TO TESTIFY

Every defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify. The defendant has chosen to exercise this right. You must not hold this decision against the defendant, and it would be improper for you to speculate as to the reason or reasons for his decision. You must not assume that the defendant is guilty because he chose not to testify.
64

MULTIPLE COUNTS ONE DEFENDANT

Each count of the Indictment charges a separate offense. You should consider each offense, and the evidence which applies to it, separately, and you should return separate verdicts as to each charge. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty on any charge in the Indictment should not influence your verdict with respect to the other charges in the Indictment.
65

ON OR ABOUT

The Indictment charges that the offenses were committed on or about particular dates. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact dates of the alleged offenses. It is sufficient if the evidence in the case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenses were committed on a date reasonably near the dates alleged.

66

OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS (COUNT ONE)

Count One of the Indictment charges the defendant with the crime of Obstruction of Congress. The offense of Obstruction of Congress contains four essential elements, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

67

 First, that on or about February 5, 2008, and February 13, 2008, an investigation was pending before The United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Second, that the defendant knew that the investigation was pending before The United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Third, that the investigation was conducted
68

within the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry by The United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and Fourth, that the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede that investigation.

I will now instruct you as to the meaning of several of the words used in the four elements of the crime of Obstruction of Congress.
69

As used in the third element, the phrase due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry means an inquiry within the investigative power of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The power of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process and is derived both from the United States Constitution and the Rules of the United
70

States House of Representatives. The investigative power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption of new laws is necessary. But the investigative power is not unlimited; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, the legitimate function of the United States Congress to make inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption of new laws is necessary. While an investigation must be related to, and in
71

furtherance of, a legitimate legislative activity to be legitimate, the legitimacy of the investigation does not depend on whether legislation was ultimately passed based on the facts learned during the investigation.

In assessing whether the Committees investigation in this case was a due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry, you must consider the individual questions the defendant was asked as they relate to the overall context of
72

the investigation. A question must have been capable of eliciting or disclosing facts that would aid the Committee in its legislative function, and the questions and answers must be viewed from the standpoint of the investigation as a whole. In other words, while your analysis should proceed on a question-by-question basis, you must consider each individual question in conjunction with the asserted purpose of the Committees investigation.

73

As used in the fourth element, the term corruptly means acting intentionally with an improper purpose, including making a false or misleading statement, or intentionally withholding or concealing information. A statement is false if it was untrue when it was made and the defendant knew it was untrue at the time. Misleading means (a) knowingly making a false statement, or (b) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to
74

be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement. Corruptly does not include making an innocent statement as a result of innocent confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. As used in the fourth element, the term endeavor means to strive or to attempt to achieve a certain result. In other words, to endeavor means to knowingly and deliberately act or to knowingly and deliberately make any
75

effort which has a reasonable tendency to bring about the desired result. The term endeavor is designed to reach all conduct which is aimed at influencing, intimidating and impeding the proceedings. Thus, this element is satisfied if you find that the defendant knowingly and intentionally made any effort or did any act for the purpose of corruptly influencing, obstructing or impeding the proceedings. Success of the endeavor is not necessary to prove the crime of Obstruction of Congress.
76

In order to find the defendant guilty of this offense, you must all agree that the defendant made at least one false or misleading statement, and all of you must agree on which statement was false or misleading. For example, if all of you agree that the defendant made at least one false or misleading statement, but all of you do not agree on which specific statement was false or misleading, the crime of Obstruction of Congress has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The underlined portions of
77

the allegedly obstructive statements set forth in the appendix attached to these instructions are alleged by the government to be false or misleading.

78

MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT (COUNTS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR)

Counts Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment each charge the defendant with the crime of Making a False Statement. The offense of Making a False Statement contains five essential elements, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
79

 First, that the defendant made a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to the government of the United States, namely, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Second, that the statement or representation was made with regard to a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight
80

and Government Reform; Third, that the investigation was conducted by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform consistent with applicable rules of the House of Representatives. Fourth, that the statement or representation made by the defendant was material to the investigation being conducted by the United States House of Representatives Committee
81

on Oversight and Government Reform; and Fifth, that the defendant made the statement knowingly and willfully.

I will now instruct you as to the meaning of several of the words used in these five elements of the crime of Making a False Statement.

As used in the first element, a statement is false, or fictitious, if it was untrue when it
82

was made and the defendant knew it was untrue at that time. A statement is fraudulent if it was untrue when it was made, the defendant knew it was untrue, and the defendant intended to deceive others through the making of the statement. In reviewing the testimony that is alleged to have been false, you should consider that testimony in the context of the series of questions the defendant was asked and the answers given, and the words used should be given their common and ordinary meaning,
83

unless the circumstances clearly show that the questioner and the defendant mutually understood the words to have a different meaning. As used in the first element, the terms statement and representation mean declarations or remarks made by the defendant.

In regard to the second element, a matter is within the jurisdiction of the United States House of Representatives Committee on
84

Oversight and Government Reform if the Committee has the power to exercise authority as to that matter. The power pertains to both the investigative and legislative capacities of the Committee as derived from both the United States Constitution and the Rules of the United States House of Representatives. The investigative power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption of new laws is necessary. But the investigative power is not
85

unlimited; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, the legitimate function of the Congress to make inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption of new laws is necessary. While an investigation must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate legislative activity to be legitimate, the legitimacy of the investigation does not depend on whether legislation was ultimately passed based on the facts learned during the investigation.
86

In assessing whether the House Committees investigation in this case was within its jurisdiction you must consider the individual questions the defendant was asked as they relate to the overall context of the investigation. A question must have been capable of eliciting or disclosing facts that would aid the Committee in its legislative function, and the questions and answers must be viewed from the standpoint of the investigation as a whole. In other words,
87

while your analysis should proceed on a question-by-question basis, you must consider each individual question in conjunction with the asserted purpose of the Committees investigation.

As used in the third element, the term material means that the statement or representation had the capacity to influence a decision of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight
88

and Government Reform. In other words, a statement is material if it relates to an important fact that had the capacity to affect or influence the Committees investigation, as distinguished from unimportant or trivial facts that did not have the capacity to affect or influence the investigation. In assessing whether a statement or representation was material, you may consider the nature of the investigation that was being conducted by the Committee. However, you should
89

understand that it is not necessary for the government to prove that the Committee was, in fact, misled or influenced in any way by the allegedly false statement; thus, a statement need not actually influence the Committee in order to be material. As used in the fifth element, the terms knowingly and willfully mean when a person acts deliberately, voluntarily, and intentionally, and not as the result of innocent confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.
90

PERJURY (COUNTS FIVE AND SIX)

Counts Five and Six of the Indictment each charge that the defendant committed the crime of Perjury. The offense of Perjury contains six essential elements, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

91

 First, that the defendant made a statement to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform while he was under oath; Second, that the oath was taken before a competent tribunal; Third, that the oath was taken in a proceeding in which the law authorized the administration of an oath; Fourth, that the statement was willfully and knowingly false in one or more respects;
92

 Fifth, that the defendant knew when he made the statement that it was false; and Sixth, that the statement was material to the matter that was being investigated by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

I will now instruct you as to the meaning of several of the words used in these six elements of the crime of Perjury.
93

As used in the first element, the term oath means a solemn declaration that a persons statement is true. The United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was a competent tribunal if it had the power to conduct the proceedings, and to conduct them in the manner in which it did, during which the defendant made his statements. The power of the Committee to conduct investigations is inherent in the
94

legislative process and is derived both from the United States Constitution and the Rules of the United States House of Representatives. The investigative power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption of new laws is necessary. But the investigative power is not unlimited; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, the legitimate function of the Congress to make inquiries concerning existing laws, as well as assessing whether the adoption
95

of new laws is necessary. While an investigation must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate legislative activity to be legitimate, and therefore render the tribunal competent, the legitimacy of the investigation does not depend on whether legislation was ultimately passed based on the facts learned during the investigation. In assessing the competency of the Committee, you must consider the individual questions that the defendant was asked as they
96

relate to the overall context of the Committees investigation. The questions must have been capable of eliciting or disclosing facts that would aid the Committee in its legislative function, and the questions and answers must be viewed from the standpoint of the investigation as a whole. In other words, while your analysis should proceed on a question-by-question basis, you must consider each individual question in conjunction with the asserted purpose of the Committees investigation.
97

As used in the fourth and fifth elements, the term false means that a statement was untrue when it was made and made with knowledge that it was untrue. Also as used in the fifth element above, the word knew means that the defendant was aware of the falsity of the statement, but nevertheless made the statement with an improper purpose. As used in the sixth element, the term material means that the statement or
98

representation had the capacity to influence a decision of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. In other words, a statement is material if it relates to an important fact that had the capacity to affect or influence the Committees investigation, as distinguished from unimportant or trivial facts that did not have the capacity to affect or influence the investigation. In assessing whether a statement or representation was
99

material, you may consider the nature of the Committees investigation. However, you should understand that it is not necessary for the government to prove that the Committee was, in fact, misled or influenced in any way by the allegedly false statement; thus, a statement need not actually influence the Committee in order to be material. You are instructed that the testimony of one witness is not enough to support a finding that the defendants statement was false. There must
100

be additional evidenceeither the testimony of another person, or documentary or other evidencethat tends to support the statements falsity. This other evidence, standing alone, need not itself convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony was false. But, after considering all of the evidence on the issue, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony was false.

101

PROOF OF STATE OF MIND

Someones intent and knowledge, and whether the person acted voluntarily and deliberately, ordinarily cannot be proved directly, because there is no way of knowing what a person is actually thinking. However, you may infer someones intent and knowledge, and whether the person acted voluntarily and deliberately from the surrounding circumstances. You may consider any
102

statement made or acts done or omitted by the defendant, and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence which indicate his intent and knowledge, and whether he acted voluntarily and deliberately.

You may infer, but are not required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts he intentionally did or did not do. It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts to find from the evidence
103

received during this trial. You should consider all the circumstances in evidence that you think are relevant in determining whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the necessary state of mind.

104

MOTIVE

Motive is not an element of the offenses charged in this case, and the government is therefore not required to prove motive in this case. You may, however, consider evidence of motive or lack of evidence of motive in deciding whether or not the government has proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

105

IMPERMISSIBLE TO INFER GUILT FROM ASSOCIATION

You may not infer that Mr. Clemens is guilty of the criminal conduct charged in this case based on the mere fact that he was associated with other people who have admitted that they engaged in certain behavior. You must weigh the evidence with respect to Mr. Clemens separately and without regard to whether others admitted that they engaged in criminal behavior.
106

Testimony by Mr. McNamee that he provided anabolic steroids or human growth hormone to non-athletic clients and Major League Baseball players other than Mr. Clemens was introduced solely for the purpose of your assessment of the credibility or believability of Mr. McNamees testimony. As explained above, you cannot, however, infer that Mr. Clemens is guilty of the crimes charged in this case based on either Mr. McNamees testimony that he provided anabolic steroids or
107

human growth hormone to non-athlete clients and Major League Baseball players other than Mr. Clemens or the admission of others that they used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone. You may also not infer that Mr. Clemens used steroids or human growth hormone based on the admission of Mr. Pettitte or Mr. Corso that they used human growth hormone. You may also not infer that Mr. Clemens used steroids or human growth hormone based on the testimony of Mr.
108

McNamee and Mrs. Clemens that Mr. McNamee injected Mrs. Clemens with human growth hormone.

109

NOTE-TAKING BY JURORS

During the trial, I have permitted those jurors who wanted to do so to take notes. You may take your notebooks with you to the jury room and use them during your deliberations if you wish. As I told you at the beginning of the trial, your notes are only to be an aid to your memory. They are not evidence in the case, and they should not replace your own memory of the evidence. The notes are intended to be for the
110

notetakers own personal use. You therefore should not read your notes aloud or show them to your fellow jurors. Those jurors who have not taken notes should rely on their own memory of the evidence.

111

EXHIBITS DURING DELIBERATIONS

I will be sending into the jury room with you the exhibits that have been admitted into evidence. You may examine any or all of them as you consider your verdicts. Please keep in mind that exhibits that were only marked for identification or used for demonstrative purposes, but were not admitted into evidence, will not be given to you to examine or consider during your deliberations.
112

SELECTION OF FOREPERSON

When you return to the jury room, you should first select a foreperson to preside over your deliberations and to be your spokesperson here in court. There are no specific rules regarding how you should select a foreperson. That is up to you. However, as you go about the task of selecting a foreperson, be mindful of your mission to reach a fair and just verdict based on the evidence. Consider selecting a
113

foreperson who will be able to facilitate your discussions, who can help you organize the evidence, who will encourage civility and mutual respect among all of you, who will invite each juror to speak up regarding his or her views about the evidence, and who will promote a full and fair consideration of that evidence.

114

ATTITUDE AND CONDUCT OF JURORS IN DELIBERATIONS

The attitude and conduct of jurors at the beginning of their deliberations are matters of considerable importance. It may not be useful for a juror, upon entering the jury room, to voice a strong expression of an opinion on the case or to announce a determination to stand for a certain verdict. When one does that at the outset, a sense of pride may cause that juror to hesitate
115

to back away from an announced position after a discussion of the case. Furthermore, many juries find it useful to avoid an initial vote upon retiring to the jury room. Calmly reviewing and discussing the case at the beginning of deliberations is often a more useful way to proceed. Remember that you are not partisans or advocates in this matteryou are judges of the facts.

116

POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT NOT RELEVANT

The question of possible punishment of the defendant in the event of a conviction is not a concern of yours and should not enter into or influence your deliberations in any way. The duty of imposing sentence in the event of a conviction rests exclusively with me. Your verdict should be based solely on the evidence

117

in this case, and you should not consider the matter of punishment at all.

118

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN COURT AND JURY DURING JURYS DELIBERATIONS

If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note to me through the clerk or one of the Marshals, signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. No member of the jury should ever try to communicate with me except by such a signed note, and I will never
119

communicate with any member of the jury on any matter concerning the merits of this case, except in writing or orally here in open court.

Bear in mind also that you are never, under any circumstances, to reveal to any personnot the clerk, the marshal, or mehow jurors are voting until after you have reached a unanimous verdict. This means that you should never tell me, in writing or in open court, how the jury is divided on any matterfor example, 6-6 or 7-5
120

or 11-1, or in any other fashionwhether the vote is for conviction or acquittal or on any other issue in the case.

121

UNANIMITY

The verdict that you render in this case must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and in order to return a verdict as to each charge, each juror must agree on the verdict. In other words, your verdict on each charge must be unanimous.

122

UNANIMITY--SPECIAL

The defendant has been charged with one count of Obstruction of Congress. Each of the four elements of this offense must be proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. You have heard evidence about more than one alleged false statement made by the defendant that provides the basis for this charge. The allegedly obstructive statements are set forth in detail in Appendix 1 to these instructions. As I
123

told you earlier, in order for you to return a guilty verdict on this charge, you must all agree that the defendant made at least one false or misleading statement, and all of you must agree on which statement was false or misleading. In other words, even if you all agree that the defendant made at least one false or misleading statement, but all of you do not agree on which specific statement was false or misleading, the crime of Obstruction of Congress has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
124

FURNISHING THE JURY WITH A TAPE RECORDING AND A WRITTEN COPY OF THE INSTRUCTIONS

I will provide you with both a tape recording and a written copy of my instructions. During your deliberations, you may, if you want, listen to or refer to these instructions. While you may listen to or refer to any particular portion of the instructions, you are to consider the instructions as a whole and you may not follow some and
125

ignore others. If you have any questions about the instructions, you should feel free to send me a note. Please return the tape recording, the recorder, and the written instructions to me after your verdict is rendered.

126

VERDICT FORM EXPLANATION

You will be provided with a Verdict Form for use when you have concluded your deliberations. The form is not evidence in this case, and nothing in it should be taken to suggest or convey any opinion by me as to what the verdict should be. Nothing in the form replaces the instructions of law I have already given you, and nothing in it replaces or modifies
127

the instructions about the elements which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The form is meant only to assist you in recording your verdict.

128

CAUTIONARY INSTRUCTION ON PUBLICITY

As you are released to begin your deliberations, I call your attention again to your duty to avoid all media coverage about this case. You must not read, listen to, or watch media reports because you must decide this case solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom. If any publicity about this trial inadvertently comes to your attention during your
129

deliberations, do not discuss it with other jurors or anyone else. Just let me or my clerk know as soon after it happens as you can, and I will then briefly discuss it with you. As you retire to the jury room to deliberate, I wish to remind you of an instruction I gave you at the beginning of the trial. Namely, during deliberations, you may not communicate with anyone not on the jury about this case. This includes the use of any electronic communication such as e-mailing, texting,
130

tweeting, or any blogging about this case. In addition, you may not conduct any independent investigation during your deliberations. This means you may not conduct any research in person or electronically through the use of the internet or in any other way.

131