K:\BATAILLO\JFB\WPPUB\CASES\CRIMINAL\Monnier, William ...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,)CASE NO: 8:02CR429)Plaintiff,))vs.)FINAL)JURY INSTRUCTIONSWILLIAM T. MONNIER,))Defendant.)INSTRUCTION NO. 1DUTYIt is your duty to decide from the evidence whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged. From the evidence, you will decide what the facts are. You are entitled to consider the evidence in the light of your own observations and experiences in life. You may use reason and common sense to draw deductions or conclusions from facts established by the evidence. You will then apply those facts to the law which I give you in these and other instructions. In that way, you will reach your verdict. You are the sole judges of the facts, but you must follow the law stated in my instructions whether you agree or disagree with the law stated in the instructions.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 a witness’s testimony, or you may believe part of a witness’s testimony, or you may decide that you do not believe any of a witness’s testimony.In deciding what testimony to believe, you may consider a witness’s intelligence, the witness’s opportunity to have seen or heard the things involved in the witness’s testimony, awitness’s memory, the motive a witness has for testifying a certain way, a witness’s manner while testifying, whether a witness has said something different at an earlier time, the general reasonableness of a witness’s testimony and the extent to which the witness’s testimony is consistent with other evidence that you believe.Do not allow sympathy or prejudice to influence you. The law requires that your verdict be just, that is, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law stated in my instructions.Anything that I may say or do during the trial must not be taken by you as an indication of what I think of the evidence or what I think your verdict should be.Finally, please remember that only the defendant, and not anyone else, is on trial here, and the defendant is on trial only for the crime or crimes charged, and not for anything else.INSTRUCTION NO. 2PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCEThe law presumes that the defendant is innocent. The defendant has no burden to prove that he is innocent. Hence, even though the defendant stands charged, the trial begins with no evidence against him.INSTRUCTION NO. 3CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFYBecause the defendant is not required to prove his innocence, the defendant’s decision to exercise his constitutional right not to testify cannot be considered by you or discussed among jurors in arriving at your verdict.INSTRUCTION NO. 4BURDEN OF PROOFThe government carries the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the crimes charged against the defendant. 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. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt.INSTRUCTION NO. 5EVIDENCE; LIMITATIONSYou should understand that an indictment is simply an accusation. It is not evidence of anything. The defendant has pled not guilty. The defendant is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.The word "evidence" includes: the testimony of witnesses; documents and other things received as exhibits; any facts that have been stipulated, that is, formally agreed to by the parties; and any facts that have been judicially noticed, that is, facts which I say you must accept as true.The following things are not evidence:1. Statements, arguments, questions and comments by lawyers are not evidence.2. Objections are not evidence.Lawyers have a right to object when they believe something is improper under the rules of evidence. You should not be influenced by the lawyer’s objection or by my ruling on the objection. If I sustain an objection to a question, ignore the question. If I overrule the objection, treat the answer like any other answer. Do not attempt to draw any inference in favor of either side as the result of the objection.3. Testimony that I strike from the record or tell you to disregard is not evidence. Youmust not consider such evidence when reaching your verdict.4. Anything you see or hear about this case outside the courtroom is not evidence. You must disregard such evidence when reaching your verdict.5. A particular item of evidence is sometimes received for a limited purpose. I will tell you when that situation arises and will instruct you on the purpose for which the evidence can and cannot be used.6. Finally, you may have heard the phrases "direct evidence" and "circumstantial evidence." You should not be concerned with those phrases, since the law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to direct or to circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value which you believe that the evidence is entitled to receive.INSTRUCTION NO. 6BENCH CONFERENCES AND RECESSESDuring this trial it may become necessary for me to talk with the lawyers outside your hearing, either by having a bench conference while you are present in the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting, counsel and I are working. The purpose of the conference is to decide how certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence or to decide a particular procedure to be followed in the case. The lawyers andI will do what we can to minimize the number and length of these conferences.INSTRUCTION NO. 7NOTE-TAKINGIf you wish, you may take notes to help you remember what witnesses said. Notes may be helpful to you because at the end of the trial, you must make your decision based on what you recall of the evidence. You will not have a written transcript to consult, and it may not be practical for the court reporter to read back lengthy testimony. Therefore, pay close attention to the testimony that is given.If you do take notes, please keep your notes to yourself until you and the other jurors go to the jury room to decide the case. Do not let note-taking distract you to the point that you miss hearing other testimony from the witness.During the trial, documents and other physical items maybe received in evidence. You will not be supplied with a list of exhibits which are received in evidence. Therefore, you may wish to make notes about the exhibits, especially their description and number, so that you can locate and refer to exhibits while you are deliberating.When we take our recess each day for the lunch-time break and when we take our recess each night, please take your notes to the jury room and leave your notes there. Ms. Dominick will take custody of your notes and secure them.No one will read your notes but you. Your notes will be destroyed after the trial is over.INSTRUCTION NO. 8CONDUCT OF THE JURYTo insure fairness, you, as jurors, must obey the following rules:1. Do not talk among yourselves about this case or about anyone involved with this case until the end of the case when you go to the jury room to decide on your verdict.2. 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.3. During the course of this trial and when you are outside the courtroom, do not listen to or allow anyone to tell you anything about this case. Do not allow anyone to talk to you about anyone involved with this case until the trial has ended and I have accepted your verdict. If anyone tries to talk to you about this case during the trial, please promptly report the matter to me.4. During the trial do not talk with or speak to any of the parties, lawyers, or witnesses involved in this case. Do not even pass the time of day with any of them. You must not only do justice in this case, but you must also give the appearance of doing justice. For instance, if a person from one side of the lawsuit sees you talking to a person from the other side, even if it is on a matter unconnected with this trial or simply to pass the time of day, such contact might arouse unwarranted suspicion about your fairness. If a lawyer, party, or witness does not speak to you when you pass in the hall, ride the elevator, or encounter each other elsewhere while this trial is taking place, remember that court rules prohibit those persons from talking or visiting with you as well.5. You must decide this case on the basis of evidence presented in the courtroom.Therefore, do not read any news stories or articles about the case or about anyone involvedwith this case. Do not listen to any radio or television reports about the case or about anyone involved with it. Until the trial is over, avoid reading any newspapers and avoid listening to any TV or radio newscasts. There may be news reports of this case, and if there are, you might find yourself inadvertently reading or listening to something before you realize what you are doing.6. Do not do any research or make any investigation on your own concerning this case. Do not use or refer to any dictionary, reference, or law book concerning any aspect of this case, including any evidence introduced. Do not visit the scene of any incident mentioned in this case.7.Do not form any opinion regarding any fact or issue in the case until you have received the entire evidence, have heard arguments of counsel, have been instructed as to the law of the case, and have retired to the jury room. 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 have discussed the evidence with the other jurors.8.Do not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice. Do not indulge in any speculation, guess, or conjecture. Do not make any inferences unless they are supported by the evidence.INSTRUCTION NO. 9OUTLINE OF TRIALThe trial will proceed in the following manner:The government, through the Assistant United States Attorney, will make an opening statement. The defendant's attorney may, but does not have to, make an opening statement. An opening statement is not evidence but is simply a summary of what the attorney expects the evidence to be.The government will then present its evidence, and counsel the defendant may cross- examine witnesses who have testified in the government's case. After the government has presented its case, the defendant may, but does not have to, present evidence, testify, or call witnesses. If a defendant calls witnesses, the government’s counsel may cross-examine those witnesses.After presentation of evidence is completed, the attorneys will make their closing arguments to summarize and interpret the evidence for you. As with opening statements, closing arguments are not evidence. I will instruct you further on the law. After thatyouwill retire to deliberate on your verdict.When you reach your verdict, we will return to the courtroom where your foreperson willdeliver the verdict to me. After the verdict is announced, one of the lawyers may ask that the jury be polled, that is, that you each be asked individually whether the verdict is your true verdict.Once you have delivered your verdict, you will be discharged and will be free to leave.INSTRUCTION NO. 10NATURE OF THE CASE; NATURE OF INDICTMENTThe parties to this criminal lawsuit are the government, represented by Assistant United States Attorney Kimberley Bunjer, and the defendant, William T. Monnier, represented by Stuart Dornan. The charges against the defendant are set forth in an indictment. You must understand that the indictment is simply an accusation. The indictment is not evidence. In order to help you follow the evidence, I will briefly summarize the elements of the crimes charged, which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to make its case.The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty to the crimes charged. Because he has entered a plea of not guilty, the law requires you to presume Mr. Monnier to be innocent. This presumption of innocence may be overcome only if the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, each element of the crimes charged against the defendant.Count I charges the defendant of conspiring with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21 United States Code §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1), and 846. The elements of the crime are:1.That from on or about 1998 through December 2002, two or more personsreached an agreement or came to a mutual understanding to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine;2.That the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined in the agreement or mutualunderstanding, either at the time it was first reached or at some later time while the agreement or mutual understanding was still in effect;3.That at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or mutual understanding, the defendant knew the purpose of the agreement or mutual understanding was to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a substance containing methamphetamine; and4.The amount of methamphetamine involved in the agreement or mutual understanding.A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership – an agreement or mutual understanding between two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The people participating in the same conspiracy are called “co-conspirators.” The crime of conspiracy is a separate and distinct offense from the crime or crimes contemplated by the conspirators. For instance, conspiring to commit mail fraud would be a separate and distinct crime from committing mail fraud.If you find these four elements unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count I.Count II of the indictment accuses the defendant of distributing less than 50 grams ofa substance containing methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, that resulted in the death of Esperanza Mendoza from using that substance, in violation of Title 21 United States Code §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). The elements of the crime are:1.On or about April 16, 2001, the defendant intentionally transferred a substancecontaining methamphetamine to Esperanza Mendoza;2.At the time of the transfer, the defendant knew that the substance contained methamphetamine; and3.The use of the substance containing methamphetamine resulted in the death of Esperanza Mendoza.If you find these three elements unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of the crime charged in Count II.You should understand, however, that what I have just given you is only a preliminary outline. At the end of the trial I shall give you a final instruction on these matters. If there is any difference between what I just told you, and what I tell you in the instructions I give you at the end of the trial, the instructions given at the end of the trial must govern you.INSTRUCTION NO. 11CONSPIRACY: “AGREEMENT” EXPLAINEDConcerning the conspiracy charged in Count I of the indictment, the government, by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, must prove that the defendant reached an agreement or understanding with at least one other person. It makes no difference whether that other person is named in the Indictment.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.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. A person who has no knowledge of a conspiracy but who happens to act in a way which advances some purpose of one does not thereby become a member.But a person may join in an agreement or understanding, as required by this element, 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 person agree to play any particular part in carrying out the agreement or understanding. A person may become a member of a conspiracy even if that person agrees to play only a minor part of the conspiracy, as long as that person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of the plan and voluntarily and intentionally joins in it.You must decide, after considering all of the evidence, whether the conspiracy allegedin Count I of the indictment existed. If you find that the alleged conspiracy did exist, you mustalso decide whether the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined the conspiracy, either at the time it was first formed or at some later time while it was still in effect. In determining whether the alleged conspiracy existed, you may consider the actions and statements of all the alleged participants. The agreement may be inferred from all the circumstances and the conduct of the alleged participants. In making that decision, you must consider only evidence of the defendant’s own actions and statements. You may not consider actions and pre-trial statements of others, except to the extent that pretrial statements of others describe something that had been said or done by the defendant.INSTRUCTION NO. 12CONSPIRACY: CO-CONSPIRATORS’ ACTS AND STATEMENTSConcerning the conspiracycharged in Count I of the indictment, you may consider acts knowingly done and statements knowingly made by a defendant’s co-conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy as evidence pertaining to the defendant even though the acts and statements were done or made in the absence of and without the knowledge of the defendant. This includes acts done or statements made before the defendant had 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.Acts and statements which are made before the conspiracybeganor after it ended are admissible only against the personmaking them and should not be considered by you against any other person.INSTRUCTION NO. 13CONSPIRACY: RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTS OF CO-CONSPIRATORSConcerning the conspiracy charged in Count I of the indictment, all members of a conspiracy are responsible for acts committed by the other members of the conspiracy, so long as those acts are committed to help advance the conspiracy and are within the reasonably foreseeable scope of the agreement. Consequently, under certaincircumstances, the act of one conspirator may be treated as the act of all conspirators. This means that all the conspirators may be convicted of a crime committed by only one of the conspirators, even INSTRUCTION NO. 14INTRODUCTIONMembers of the jury, the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial and during the trial remain in effect. I now give you some additional instructions. You must continue to follow the instructions I gave you earlier as well as those I give you now. Do not single out some instructions and ignore others. I urge you to review the instructions I gave you at the beginning of the trial before you begin to deliberate. You should take your notebooks to the jury room with you.INSTRUCTION NO. 15DUTY OF JURYIt is your duty as jurors to find from the evidence what the facts are. You will then apply the law as I give it to you to those facts. Each of you must follow my instructions on the law, even if you think the law is different or should be different. Do not allow sympathy or prejudice toward any party 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.INSTRUCTION NO. 16REASONABLE DOUBTThe law presumes a defendant to be innocent of a crime. Thus a defendant, although accused, begins the trial with a “clean slate” – with no evidence against him. And the law permits nothing but legal evidence presented before the jury to be considered in support of any charge against the accused. So the presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit a defendant, unless the jurors are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubtof the defendant’s guilt after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense - the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act in the most important of his or her affairs. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt must, therefore, be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it in the most important of his or her own affairs.A defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture. The burden is always on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to the defendant, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case,has a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a charge, it must acquit. If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions -- one of innocence, the other of guilt -- the jury must, of course, adopt the conclusion of innocence.INSTRUCTION NO. 17REASONABLE INFERENCESWhile you should consider only the evidence in the case, you are permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony and exhibits that you feel are justified in the light of common experience. In other words, you may make deductions and reach conclusions which reason and common sense lead you to draw from the facts which have been established by the testimony and evidence in the case.INSTRUCTION NO. 18CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSESIn 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 said, or 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 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 hear or see 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 only a small detail.INSTRUCTION NO. 19EXPERT WITNESSESYou have heard testimony 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.Expert testimony should be considered 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, the acceptability of the methods used, and all the other evidence in the case.INSTRUCTION NO. 20IMPEACHMENT OF WITNESS: PLEA AGREEMENTS OR DRUG USEYou heard testimony from certain witnesses who entered into non-prosecution or plea agreements with the government. In evaluating the testimony of such a witness you should consider whether that testimony may have been influenced by the agreement with the government. Whether or not information or testimony given by the witness may have been influenced by the possibility of receiving a reduced sentence is for you to decide.You also heard testimony from persons who have abused drugs. In evaluating the testimony of such a witness you should consider this evidence, along with other pertinent evidence, in deciding whether or not to believe such a witness and how much weight to give to the testimony of that witness.INSTRUCTION NO. 21PROOF OF INTENT OR KNOWLEDGEIntent or knowledge may be proved like anything else.You may consider any statements made and acts done by the defendant and all the facts and circumstances in evidence which may aid in a determination of the knowledge or intent of the defendant.You may, but are not required to, infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly done or knowingly omitted.INSTRUCTION NO. 22POSSESSION DEFINEDThe law recognizes several kinds of possession. A person may have actual possession or constructive possession. A person may have sole or joint 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 dominion or 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.INSTRUCTION NO. 23CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES: TRANSFER DEFINEDA transfer of a controlled substance does not require the transferor to have a financial interest in the transaction. Thus, the government need not prove that the transfer of methamphetamine in this case was made in exchange for money or a promise to pay money or that the defendant benefitted from the transfer. Thus, the sharing of controlled substances can constitute a transfer.INSTRUCTION NO. 24INTENT TO CAUSE DEATHThe government is not required to prove that the defendant intended that a distribution of methamphetamine would or could result in death of another person.INSTRUCTION NO. 25RESULTANT DEATHThe government is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant provided the methamphetamine that caused Esperanza Mendoza’s death. To determine the cause of Ms. Menodoza’s death the government must prove:(1)That the defendant provided Esperanza Mendoza methamphetamine; and(2)That that methamphetamine produced the death of Esperanza Mendoza in a continuous sequence of events, and without which the result would not have occurred. If the government fails to prove either of these elements then your verdict on Count IImust be in favor of the defendant.If the government has proven both elements, then your verdict on Count II must be in favor of the government.INSTRUCTION NO. 26DEFENDANT’S PRIOR SIMILAR ACTSYou heard a certain category of evidence called “similar acts” evidence. Here, that evidence is that the defendant allegedly attempted to have sex with Jackie Maxcy after he had provided her with methamphetamine. You may not use this “similar acts” evidence to decide whether the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crimes charged in the indictment. To consider the “similar acts” evidence at all, you must first unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the rest of the evidence introduced, that the defendant carried out the acts involved in the crimes charged in the indictment. If you make that finding, then you may consider the similar acts evidence to decide whether it shows that the defendant allegedly provided methamphetamine to others as part of a common scheme or plan. Similar acts evidence must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; that is, you must find that the evidence is more likely true than not true. This is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you find that this evidence is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, you should give it the weight and value you believe it is entitled to receive. If you find that it is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then you shall disregard such evidence.Remember, even if you find that the defendant may have committed a similar act in thepast, this is not evidence that he committed such an act in this case. You may not convict a person simply because you believe he may have committed similar acts in the past. The defendant is on trial only for the crime charged, and you may consider the evidence of prior acts only on the issue of whether the defendant allegedly provided methamphetamine to others as part of a common scheme or plan.INSTRUCTION NO. 27NOTESSome of you may have taken notes during the trial; others of you may have chosen not to take notes. If you did take notes, remember that those notes are not themselves evidence, but are instead merely memory aids. You must reach a verdict based upon your independent recollection of the evidence presented during the trial, not upon your notes or another juror's notes. Notes are not entitled to any greater weight than the recollection or impression of each juror as to what the testimony may have been.INSTRUCTION NO. 28ELECTION OF FOREPERSON; DUTY TO DELIBERATEIn conducting your deliberations and returning your verdict, there are certain rules you must follow. I shall list those rules for you now.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, it is your duty, as jurors, to discuss this case with one another in the jury room. You should try to reach agreement because a verdict - whether guilty or not guilty - must be unanimous. Each of you must make your own conscientious decision, but only after you have considered all the evidence, discussed it fully with your fellow jurors, and listened to the views of your fellow jurors. Do not be afraid to change your opinions if the discussion persuades you that you should. But do not come to a decision simply because other jurors think it is right, or simply to reach a verdict.Third, if a defendant is found guilty, the sentence to be imposed is my responsibility. You may not consider punishment in any way in deciding whether the government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.Fourth, if you need to communicate with me during your deliberations, you may senda note to me through the U.S. Marshal or the courtroom deputy, 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.Fifth, your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law which I havegiven to you in my instructions. The verdict, whether guilty or not 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 simply the written notice of the decision that you reach in this case. You will take the verdict form to the jury room, and when each of you has agreed on verdicts for the defendant, your foreperson will fill in the form, sign and date it, and advise the marshal or courtroom deputy that you are ready to return to the courtroom. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- o bataillo jfb public cases criminal cook lawrence
- k bataillo jfb wppub cases criminal monnier william
- part i problem of punishment hls orgs
- monday august 13 2001
- administrative decisions u s department of veterans affairs
- chapter 5—history and structure of american law enforcement
- chapter 5 evaluating evidence and making a decision u s
- evidence nyu law
Related searches
- william b ford act loan forgiveness
- william d ford loan forgiveness application
- william d ford federal direct loan program
- direct loans william d ford
- william d ford loan application
- william b ford act student loan
- william d ford act
- william d ford act scam
- william ford direct loan consolidation
- william b ford act
- william b ford act for student loan
- william d ford student loan