UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

*************************
* *
* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
* *
* v. * 07-CR-0189-03-GZS
* *
* CIRINO GONZALEZ *
* *
*************************

PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

NOW COMES the defendant, Cirino Gonzalez, by counsel, David H. Bownes, and

respectfully submits the following jury instructions and for such further instruction as may be

warranted.

Respectfully Submitted,
Cirino Gonzalez,
By His Attorney,

LAW OFFICE OF DAVID H. BOWNES, P.C.

Dated: April 2, 2008 /S/ David H. Bownes, Esq.

David H. Bownes, Esq.
NH Bar No.: 277
486 Union Avenue
Laconia, NH 03246
(603) 524-4330
office@dhblaw.net

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on this 2nd day of April, 2008 that a copy of the foregoing Proposed
Jury Instructions has been forwarded to Arnold Huftalen, Esq., United States Attorney’s Office,
Paul Garrity, Esq, Stanley Norkunas, Esq. and to Sven Wiberg, Esq. via ECF.

/S/ David H. Bownes, Esq.

David H. Bownes, Esq.
 JURY INSTRUCTION #1

COUNT V 924 (c) Charge

As I’ve indicated, you must consider each of the charges against these defendants

separately. That is you must make your determination with respect to Mr. Gonzalez based on the

evidence as it relates to Mr. Gonzalez. You may not consider evidence that does not relate to

Mr. Gonzalez. In particular, Mr. Gonzalez is charged with one count of Carrying or Using a

Firearm in Connection with a Crime of Violence. As to Mr. Gonzalez, you must unanimously

find that the government has proven the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

First;

A. The defendant conspired to prevent officers of the United States from discharging

their duties as charged in Count 1; or

B. Conspired to interfere with federal law enforcement officers in the discharge of their

duties as alleged in count 2;

Second;

That the government has demonstrated that an overt act by one of the conspirators in fact

occurred.

Third;

The defendant knowingly used or carried the firearm in connection with one of those

crimes of violence and that the defendant actually possessed a firearm in furtherance of one of

those crimes of violence. By furtherance, I mean that it is not sufficient to simply show that Mr.

Gonzalez possessed a firearm in a particular time frame. Rather, the government must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gonzalez’s possession of a firearm for the specific purpose

of promoting the crime of violence;

 Fourth;

The defendant’s use of the firearm played an important role in the crime of violence.

Fifth;

In addition, you must unanimously decide that Mr. Gonzalez possessed an actual firearm.

You may not consider as evidence any of the firearms except those that I am going to identify for

you now. The only firearms that you may consider in determining whether Mr. Gonzalez

committed a violation are the following;

1. A Bushmaster rifle purchased in Alstead (Exhibit 5c);

2. An M 44 rifle purchased in Newport, NH (Exhibit 5a-3);

3. A .50 caliber Serbu rifle purchased in Newport, NH (Exhibit 5d);

4. A .50 caliber Serbu rifle purchased in Newport, NH (Exhibit 17a);

5. Two (2) Ruger rifles purchased on 7/20/07 (Exhibit 5a-2);

6. A .50 caliber Serbu purchased on 7/25/07 (Exhibit 5e);

7. A Ruger rifle (Exhibit 5q).

You are instructed that these are the only firearms that you may consider in determining

whether Mr. Gonzalez used or possessed a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. You

may not consider any of the other firearms in this case.

In addition, your verdicts with respect to this particular crime must be unanimous. That

is, all twelve of you must agree that Mr. Gonzalez used one of the identified firearms beyond a

reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient that some members of the jury are convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt that Mr. Gonzalez possessed for example, the firearm in Exhibit 5c, and some

of you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearms identified in

Exhibit 5a-2. Rather, you must all unanimously agree to the following;
1. That Mr. Gonzalez possessed the firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence;
and

2. That Mr. Gonzalez possessed one particular firearm.

 JURY INSTRUCTION #2

CONSPIRACY/THEORY OF THE CASE

You are instructed that in order to prove a conspiracy, the defendant must enter into an

agreement to do an unlawful act. It is not unlawful to declare your opposition to a particular law

or for that matter declare your support for individuals taking that position. Rather, the unlawful

act in this case must be intentionally entering into an agreement to do something unlawful. In

this case, resist the efforts of the United States Marshal’s Service to arrest Ed and Elaine Brown.

You may consider all of the evidence in making this determination including whether or

not there were any actual efforts by the U.S. Marshal’s Service to in fact effectuate the arrest of

Ed and Elaine Brown. Again, the gravamen of the conspiracy is the intentional entering into an

agreement to commit an unlawful act. And in order to convict Mr. Gonzalez of either the

conspiracies alleged in Count I or Count II, the government must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that Mr. Gonzalez knowingly and intentionally entered into an unlawful agreement.
 JURY INSTRUCTION # 3

EXPLOSIVES/DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES

The defendant is not charged with the offense of using and/or carrying explosive/

destructive device in furtherance of a crime of violence. The government has agreed that the

evidence it has offered with respect to those charges (this include the series of exhibits numbered

6, 7, 8 & 9 in their entirety) is not being offered against Mr. Gonzalez.

Therefore you are instructed that you may not consider any of that evidence as it relates

to Mr. Gonzalez. That is, as I’ve told you, you must consider the charges against each of the

defendants separately and independently. When you consider the charges against Mr.

Gonzalez, you may not consider any of the evidence as it relates to the explosives/destructive

devices identified again in the entire exhibits offered by the government and identified as exhibit

6 and it’s subparts, exhibit 7 and it’s subparts, exhibit 8 and it’s subparts, and exhibit 9 and it’s

subparts.

(See government’s response to the defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Motion In

Limine where the government stated that it would not offer that evidence against Mr. Gonzalez.)