Jesica Oseguera Mencho Daughter Plea

Case 1:20-cr-00040-BAH Document 188 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.: 20-040 (BAH)

)
v. )
)
JESSICA OSEGUERA GONZALEZ, )
)
)
Defendant. )
JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT
The United States and Defendant Jessica Oseguera Gonzalez, through undersigned
counsel, respectfully submit this Joint Pretrial Statement as required by the Court’s Standing Order
in Criminal Cases. See Dkt. No. 16 (“Standing Order”).
I. Written Statements Regarding Plea Communications
Pursuant to paragraph 8.a. of the Court’s Standing Order, the government’s statement
regarding the terms of its plea offer to the defendant are set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto. The
defendant’s counsel’s statement regarding communication to the defendant of plea offers and of
sentencing exposure is attached as Exhibit 2 hereto.
II. Joint Statement of the Case
Pursuant to paragraph 8.b. of the Standing Order, the government proposes the following
statement of the case to be read to prospective jurors:
The defendant is charged with five counts of violating the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin
Designation Act, which is also called the “Kingpin Act” for short. The Kingpin Act
prohibits any U.S. person, such as a U.S. citizen, from engaging in any transaction or
dealing with a person or entity designated by the U.S. government as a “significant foreign
narcotics trafficker.” The Kingpin Act also prohibits any U.S. person or entity from
engaging in any transaction or dealing with foreign entities that have been designated by
the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) in the Department of the Treasury for
providing material assistance or support to a significant foreign narcotics trafficker. The
defendant is charged with engaging in transactions or dealings with six foreign businesses
that were designated by OFAC for providing material assistance or support to the Mexico-
based Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion, which has been designated by the U.S. government
as a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker.”
The defendant disagrees with the government’s proposed statement, and proposes instead
that the following be read to prospective jurors:
The defendant is charged with five counts of violating the Kingpin Act. The Kingpin Act
prohibits any U.S. person, such as a U.S. citizen, from knowingly and willfully engaging
in any transaction or dealing with a person or entity designated by the U.S. government.
Ms. Gonzalez is presumed innocent. In order to overcome this presumption of innocence,
the government must prove each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt. First, Ms.
Gonzalez knew that the entities identified in the Indictment were designated by the U.S.
government. Second, Ms. Gonzalez understood that it was illegal for her to engage in
dealings or transactions with those designated entities. And, third, with knowledge of this
illegality, Ms. Gonzalez still engaged in dealings or transactions with the entities identified
in the Indictment.
III. Proposed Voir Dire Questions
Proposed voir dire questions are set forth in Exhibit 3 hereto, which notes both the
questions on which the parties agree as well as the questions on which the parties disagree.
IV. Proposed Jury Instructions
Proposed jury instructions are set forth in Exhibit 4 hereto, which indicates the instructions
on which the parties disagree as well as differing proposals and citations to appropriate authority
in the event of disagreement.
V. Expert Witnesses
The government anticipates moving to qualify the following witnesses as experts:
• Alonzo Bell, or alternatively Nathalie Smith, who are both employed by the Office
of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) as Enforcement Officers. OFAC publishes a
list of individuals and companies owned, controlled, or materially supported by
designated countries or individuals such as significant foreign narcotics traffickers.
2
OFAC requires a license for any U.S. person to transact business with any
individual or entity on the list. As Enforcement Officers, Mr. Bell, or alternatively
Ms. Smith, have specialized knowledge of the OFAC sanction programs, including
the Kingpin Act, and the licensing process.
Defendant’s Objection: As to Alonzo Bell or Nathalie Smith, Ms. Gonzalez submits
that the government’s summary does not satisfy the requirement of the Court’s Standing
Order that the parties provide a “brief description of each witness’ . . . expected
testimony.” Instead, the government’s summary states only that Mr. Bell and Ms. Smith
have “specialized knowledge of the OFAC sanction programs, including the Kingpin Act,
and the licensing process.” Ms. Gonzalez reserves the right to object to these experts at
trial, and to seek a recess or continuance if necessary to evaluate the bases for the experts’
testimony, or any documents that they created or relied upon that have not yet been
produced to Ms. Gonzalez.
• Judi O’Brien is a Translator and Language Services Coordinator for the U.S.
Department of Justice. Ms. O’Brien prepared English translations of Spanish-
language news articles, foreign corporate documents, social media posts, websites,
and other documents to be introduced at trial. Ms. O’Brien will testify that she
reviewed the documents in Spanish and translated them into English, and that each
English translation is a true and accurate translation of the Spanish document.
Defendant’s Objection: As to Judi O’Brien, Ms. Gonzalez objects on the ground that
the government has not yet identified the translations it will seek to admit at trial from its
over 50,000 pages of discovery. Given this, Ms. Gonzalez reserves the right to object to
3
this expert at trial, if, after having an opportunity to review the accuracy of the translations
to which Ms. O’Brien will testify, Ms. Gonzalez has an objection as to Ms. O’Brien’s
proffered area of expertise.
Pursuant to Paragraph 8(e) of Chief Judge Howell’s Standing Order for Criminal Cases,
Defendant Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez submits that she may call Joseph Caruso and/or
Vincent Risalvato as an expert witness.
• Joseph Caruso is the Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Technology
Officer of Global Digital Forensics. Mr. Caruso is a recognized industry leader in
the fields of computer forensics, eDiscovery and cyber security, and has over 20
years of active in-the-field experience in numerous technology areas. Mr. Caruso
has testified as an expert in state and federal courts on numerous occasions.
• Vincent Risalvato is the Southeast Director of Global Digital Forensics. Mr.
Risalvato has over 35 years of technology experience. Mr. Risalvato has testified
as an expert in state and federal courts on numerous occasions.
• Should the government present evidence from web hosting companies, Mr. Caruso
and/or Mr. Risalvato is expected to testify that, in his expert opinion, the records
are unreliable. Mr. Caruso and/or Mr. Risalvato will also be prepared to rebut any
evidence submitted by the government regarding computer evidence, including
evidence obtained from any social media or email accounts.
Government Objection: The government submits that this summary by the defendant does
not satisfy the requirement of the Court’s Standing Order that the parties provide a “brief
description of each witness’ . . . expected testimony.” To say only that the expert will “rebut
4
evidence” and testify that “records are unreliable” provides no substantive information about the
opinions that the defendant intends to offer, much less the bases for those opinions. The
government reserves the right to object to these experts at trial, and to seek a recess or continuance
if necessary to evaluate the experts’ methods, the bases or their opinions, or any documents that
they created or relied upon that have not yet been produced to the government.
VI. Motions in Limine
Apart from motions already briefed, the parties anticipate that the motions in limine listed
below may be filed in advance of trial. The government anticipates filing the following motion in
limine:
• Motion to Preclude Testimony or Argument Related to Vindictive Prosecution
Claim
The government will promptly identify any other issue and will promptly file any necessary
motions in limine that are not apparent at this time but may arise before trial.
The defendant anticipates filing the following motions in limine:
1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Admit Statements of Party Opponent and Incorporated
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Offering Conclusions
or Speculation Regarding Defendant’s Beliefs, Understandings, Motivations, or
Knowledge and Incorporated Memorandum Of Points And Authorities
3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Prejudicial Argument, Evidence,
and Testimony at Trial and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities
5
4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Allow Defendant to Present Argument or Elicit
Testimony at Trial Without Opening the Door to the Government’s Proposed Fed. R. Evid.
404(B) Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities
5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Social Media Evidence Produced Without
Corresponding Metadata and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities
6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument, Testimony, or Evidence Relating to
Defendant’s Tax Returns and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities
7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine for an Order Directing the Government to Produce
Demonstratives Fourteen Days Before Trial and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and
Authorities
8. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Compel the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of
Foreign Assets Control to Provide a Specific License to Defense Counsel and Incorporated
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
9. Defendant’s Motion in Limine for Additional Information Regarding the Court’s Trial
Procedures in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Incorporated Memorandum of Points
and Authorities
10. Defendant’s Motion in Limine for an Order Directing the District of Columbia Department
of Corrections to Provide Defendant Gonzalez Video Access to Her Counsel During Trial
and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Ms. Gonzalez will promptly identify any other issue and will promptly file any necessary
motions in limine that are not apparent at this time but may arise before trial.
6
VII. Prior Convictions
The government does not anticipate offering any prior convictions in evidence.
VIII. Government’s Exhibit List
A list of exhibits that the government expects to offer at trial is attached hereto as Exhibit
5.
IX. Stipulations
The parties have agreed in principle to the following stipulation, and are working to finalize
the stipulation in advance of trial:
• Stipulation as to the Defendant’s Status as a “United States Person”
The government has requested the following stipulations of the defense, and the defense
has either rejected them or not yet made a decision:
• Stipulation as to the Authenticity of Emails, Social Media, and Internet Archive

Records Produced in Response to Search Warrants and/or With 902(13)
Certifications
• Stipulation for the Use of Translations for Spanish-Language Documentary

Evidence
X. Proposed Verdict Form
A proposed verdict form is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
7
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of February, 2021.
McCool Law PLLC Arthur Wyatt, Chief

Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
/s/ Steven McCool Criminal Division
Steven McCool U.S. Department of Justice
Julia Coleman
/s/ Brett Reynolds
McCool Law PLLC Brett Reynolds
1776 K Street NW, Ste. 200 Kaitlin Sahni
Washington, D.C. 20006 Kate Naseef
(202) 450-3370
smccool@mccoollawpllc.com Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice
145 N Street NE, 2nd Floor East
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 598-2950
brett.reynolds@usdoj.gov
8
Case 1:20-cr-00040-BAH Document 188-1 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CRIMINAL NO. 20-CR-040 (BAH)
JESSICA OSEGUERA GONZALEZ,
Defendant.
EXHIBIT 1: GOVERNMENT’S SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PLEA TERMS
Pursuant to paragraph 8(a)(i) of the Court’s Standing Order, see Dkt. No. 16, the government
submits this summary of a plea offer made to the defendant.
On June 19, 2020, the government communicated a written plea offer to the defendant’s
counsel, proposing that the defendant would (1) plead guilty to all five counts in the indictment,
(2) agree that a Base Offense Level of 26 would apply at sentencing pursuant to Sentencing
Guideline § 2M5.3, (3) agree that by attempting to evade the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation
Act (“Kingpin Act”), she attempted to obstruct the administration of justice within the meaning of
Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1, (4) agree that she was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor
within the meaning of Sentencing Guideline § 3B1.1, (5) agree not to seek Guidelines departures
other than for acceptance of responsibility, and (6) agree to waive certain appellate and collateral
attack claims.
In return, the government proposed that it would (1) agree not to prosecute the defendant for
any other violations of the Kingpin Act occurring between September 17, 2015 and the date on which
she was indicted, (2) agree not to seek any additional sentencing enhancements other than those
agreed to by the defendant (as set forth above), (3) agree to a two-level decrease from the applicable
1
Sentencing Guidelines range for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(a), and
(4) agree, in the event that a plea had been entered before substantial litigation and trial preparation
had occurred, to a one-level decrease from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range pursuant to
Guideline § 3E1.1(b).
The government’s plea offer was set to expire on July 8, 2020. Prior to that date, defense
counsel communicated the defendant’s rejection of the offer. Counsel for the government and
counsel for the defendant had informal conversations about possible resolution of this matter
thereafter, but did not reach a resolution.
2
Paragraph 8(a) Statement
Pursuant to paragraph 8(a) of the Court’s Standing Order for Criminal Cases, counsel for
Ms. Gonzalez states that on June 22, 2020, he and other attorneys in his law firm communicated
the government’s plea offer to Ms. Gonzalez, in English and Spanish, including the maximum
statutory penalties, the applicability of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and the
government’s proposed sentencing guidelines range. On July 8, 2020, the Court granted
defendant’s motion for a limited Presentence Investigation Report, because she disagreed with the
guideline the government maintains is applicable in this case. On September 11, 2020, the Court
advised the parties that the United States Probation Office found no analogous guideline for 21
U.S.C. § 1906.
PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
Unless otherwise noted in a footnote, the parties agree on the following voir dire statement and
questions:
The process of jury selection is called the voir dire process, and its object is to select twelve
(12) jurors and three (3) alternates who have no prior knowledge concerning this case and no bias
toward either side in this case. In short, it is our aim to select a jury that will reach a verdict based
solely upon the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law as I instruct you.
[ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE COURT ABOUT THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS]
Voir Dire Questions

1. From what I have told you so far, have you heard or read about this matter before coming to
court or do you believe you know anything about the facts and circumstances of the case?
2. The United States is represented in this case by Department of Justice Trial Attorneys Brett
Reynolds, Kate Naseef, and Kaitlin Sahni. PLEASE STAND. Do you know any of these
attorneys? Also present for the government are Paralegal Angela Ancalle Jimenez and DEA
Special Agent Kyle Mori. PLEASE STAND. Do you know either of these individuals?
3. The defendant at trial is Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez. PLEASE STAND. Do you know
the defendant or have you had any contact with the defendant?
4. Jessica Oseguera Gonzalez is represented in this case by Steven McCool, Julia Coleman, and
Yasmin Perez from McCool Law PLLC. PLEASE STAND. Do you know these individuals,
either personally or professionally, or have any affiliation with McCool Law PLLC?
5. You may hear testimony from or about a number of people during the course of this trial. The
government may call the following witnesses: [LIST WITNESSES]. Do you know any of
these potential witnesses?
1
6. Ms. Gonzalez is presumed innocent of the charges against her, and has no obligation to call
any witnesses. Ms. Gonzalez may or may not call some or all of the following witnesses:
[LIST WITNESSES]. Do you know any of these potential witnesses?
7. The following companies and organizations may be mentioned during this case: J&P
Advertising, S.A. de C.V., JJGON S.R.P. de R.L. de C.V., Las Flores Cabanas, Cabanas Las
Flores, Mizu Sushi Lounge, Operadora Los Famosos, S.A. de C.V., Kenzo Sushi, Operadora
Los Famosos, S.A.P.I. de C.V., Onze Black, and Tequila Onze Black. Are any of you familiar
with, or have any connection to, the companies and organizations whose names I have read?
8. Do you know or do you recognize any other member of the prospective jury panel?
9. Do you know anyone else who is in the courtroom today, such as any of the courtroom clerks;
the interpreters; the courtroom reporter; or me, the Judge?
10. You have heard about the charges in this case, which involve the alleged violation of economic
sanctions imposed on foreign businesses for materially supporting international narcotics
trafficking activities by the United States Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets
Control. Does anyone have such strong feelings about these charges that it would be difficult
to be fair and impartial? 1
11. Have you ever been subject to being designated or blocked by the United States Department
of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control?
1
Defendant’s Objections: This language is inflammatory and unduly prejudicial to the
defendant. The defendant proposes the following language:
You have heard about the charges in this case, which involve the alleged transactions or
dealings with entities that have been designated or blocked by the United States
Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control. Does anyone have such strong
feelings about these charges that it would be difficult to be fair and impartial?
2
12. As I’ve explained, the defendant is charged with violating economic sanctions. You will
receive instructions that you must accept, as a matter of law, that the economic sanctions
underlying the charges are valid. Is there anyone who believes that they would not be able to
follow the Court’s instructions with respect to the validity of the economic sanctions that
underlie the criminal charges in this case? 2
13. The lawyers predict that the presentation of evidence in this trial should last approximately 4
to 5 days, and I think this is a fair estimate, but it could run shorter or longer. The jury will sit
Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM for as long as it takes to hear the evidence
in the case. The length of jury deliberations following the presentation of evidence at trial will
be determined by the jury itself. Do you have an urgent or extremely important matter to attend
to, such that you could be faced with a hardship if selected for the jury in this case?
14. Do you have any vision or hearing problems, or any other physical or medical problems, that
might interfere with your ability to hear or understand what the witnesses say in this case or to
give your full attention to the case?
15. Do you have any other health problems which would interfere with your ability to sit as a juror
in this case?
16. Do you have any difficulty in reading, speaking, or understanding English?
2
Defendant’s Objections: The phrase “economic sanctions” is not an element of any of
the charges in this case. The defendant proposes the following language:
As I’ve explained, the defendant is charged with engaging in transactions or dealings with
entities that have been designated or blocked by the United States Department of Treasury
Office of Foreign Assets Control. You will receive instructions that you must accept, as a
matter of law, that the reason that the United States Department of Treasury Office of
Foreign Assets Control designated or blocked certain entities is valid. Is there anyone who
believes that they would not be able to follow the Court’s instructions with respect to the
validity of the United States Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control’s
decision to designate or block certain entities that underlie the criminal charges in this case?
3
17. Does it appear to you that other members of the panel are having trouble hearing, seeing or
understanding English?
18. The trial is to be conducted in English, although it is anticipated that some of the evidence will
be presented in Spanish and will be translated into English for your understanding. Is there
anyone here who speaks, writes, or reads Spanish?
19. The evidence you are to consider is only that provided in English, either through the official
court interpreter when a witness testifies in a foreign language, or as presented in translated
exhibits. Although some of you may know Spanish, you must not rely on your own
interpretation – you will be required to accept the English interpretation and consider only the
English portion of the written translations. Would any of you have any difficulty adhering to
this instruction?
20. Have you, any members of your family, or any close friends ever studied law, had any legal
training, or been employed by a lawyer or a law firm, worked in a courthouse, been a paralegal,
served as a legal secretary, or performed legal investigative work?
21. Do you have any moral, religious, or ethical beliefs that prevent you from sitting in judgment
of another person?
22. Do you have any personal, cultural, or religious bias that would prevent you from treating the
testimony of all individuals equally and fairly?
23. Have you ever served as a juror at a criminal trial or on a grand jury? If so, please provide
details. Did the jury reach a verdict? In the event that you served on a grand jury, did the grand
jury ever refuse to indict?
24. Have you ever served as a juror at a civil trial? If so, did the civil jury that you served on render
a verdict?
4
25. If you have previously been a juror in a civil or criminal trial, was there anything about your
experience that might affect your ability to serve fairly and impartially in this case?
26. Have you, any members of your family, or any close friends ever been employed by a local,
state, or federal law enforcement agency or a private security company, or ever applied for
such employment? For example, this includes work at a police department, FBI, sheriff’s
department, Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Marshals Service,
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, or the like.
27. Have you, any members of your family, or any close friends ever been employed by a
correctional facility, such as the District of Columbia Department of Corrections?
28. Have you or any of your close friends worked for a defense attorney or defender organization,
or been involved in any way in the defense of a criminal case?
29. Have any of you, or your close friends or relatives, ever worked for an office that prosecutes
people charged with criminal offenses? This would include, for example, the United States
Attorney’s Office, a State’s Attorney’s or District Attorney’s Office, or the Department of
Justice.
30. Have you, any members of your family, or any close personal friends had any experiences with
any law enforcement agency or the government that might cause you to favor or disfavor the
government or law enforcement?
31. Have you ever filed a complaint against a police officer or anyone in law enforcement?
32. Do you believe that government witnesses or law enforcement officers are more likely to tell
the truth than other witnesses? If so, why?
33. Do you believe that government witnesses or law enforcement officers are less likely to tell
the truth than other witnesses? If so, why?
5
34. Is there any reason you would not be able to follow my instruction that you are not to give any
greater or lesser weight to the testimony of a witness merely because he or she is a government
or law enforcement officer?
35. Have you or any members of your family or any close personal friends ever been arrested or
convicted of a crime, been a victim of a crime, been a witness to a crime, testified in court or
before a grand jury as a witness to a crime, or been required to appear in court for any reason?
36. Do you or a close friend or family member belong to any group or organization that is active
in law enforcement or crime victim prevention matters? I will give you some examples:
Fraternal Order of Police, Crime Watch, Crime Stoppers, or crime victim groups?
37. Do you or a close friend or family member belong to any group or organization working with
asylum seekers in the United States?
38. Have you or any of your family members ever served in the U.S. military?
39. Is there anything else about the nature of this case or about the parties involved that would
make it difficult for you to remain objective or to render a verdict based solely upon the
evidence presented?
40. The defendant is charged in an indictment. An indictment is just the formal way of informing
a defendant of the nature of the charges against her – it is not any indication of guilt. In a
criminal trial, every defendant is presumed to be innocent; this presumption remains with her
throughout the trial, unless and until she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The
burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt rests with the government
– the prosecution – and the burden never shifts during the course of a trial; a defendant need
not prove her innocence, produce any evidence, or testify. Is there anyone who feels that he or
she will be unable to follow those principles of law if selected as a juror in this trial?
6
41. You may hear evidence about events that allegedly took place in Mexico. Have any of you
lived or worked in, or traveled to Mexico, or do you or any close friends or family members
have any special familiarity with Mexico?
42. The Defendant Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is a resident of Mexico. Do you have any
particular opinions or beliefs regarding residents of Mexico that might make it difficult for you
to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
43. The defendant is accused of engaging in conduct which took place outside of the United States.
As a matter of law, I will instruct you that this Court has proper jurisdiction over the allegations
charged against the defendant. Do you have any personal feelings about the United States
government prosecuting someone whose conduct occurred outside of the United States? 3
44. You may see evidence obtained by the Government of Mexico. Do you have any bias or
concerns relating to the Government of Mexico that might make it difficult for you to fairly
evaluate that evidence?
45. This case involves an alleged drug trafficking organization in Mexico known as the Cartel de
Jalisco Nueva Generacion, or CJNG. Do you have any prior knowledge about the CJNG? If
so, what do you recall about the CJNG and what are your views or feelings about the CJNG? 4
46. Have you, any members of your family, or any close friends ever had any problems or received
treatment or counseling for abuse of alcohol, prescription drugs, or illegal drugs?
3
Defendant’s Objections: Inappropriate to focus on one aspect of the law. The only
relevant inquiry is whether the juror can follow the Court’s instruction on the law.
4
defendant. People v Mapp, 670 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (quoting People v Kendricks,
459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)) (“voir dire should not be converted into a ‘vehicle for
pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to a particular theory or defense . . . .”);
People v Bell, 505 NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (stating that questions that attempt to
pre-view one party’s theory of the case are improper).
7
47. Have any of you or have you had a close friend or family member who has been seriously
affected by drug use or drug distribution?
48. Do any of you have such strong feelings about any particular controlled substance, the laws
and penalties associated with controlled substances, enforcement of the drug laws in general,
or the legalization of drug use in the United States in particular that you could not serve as a
fair and impartial juror in this case? 5
49. Do any of you now belong, or have you within the past five years belonged to or participated
in any groups that support the reform of current drug laws, including the repeal of drug laws,
or any organization that seeks to decrease the punishment of sentences of people convicted of
drug related crimes? 6
50. Other than what you have already explained, have you, a family member or a close friend ever
been interviewed or asked to make a statement by the FBI, IRS, DEA, MPD, CBP, or any other
law enforcement agency? If so, is there anything about that fact that would prevent you from
being a fair and impartial juror in this case?
51. What is your preferred source of news on current events? 7
5
defendant. Landry v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1988) (ruling defendant’s failure to make
contemporaneous objections to prosecutor’s allegedly improper use of hypotheticals during voir
dire prevented granting relief requested); People v Mapp, 670 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
(quoting People v Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)) (“voir dire should not
be converted into a ‘vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to a
particular theory or defense . . . .”); People v Bell, 505 NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)
(stating that questions that attempt to pre-view one party’s theory of the case are improper).
6
defendant.
7
Government’s Objection: It is the content of news and not its source that would be
relevant to determining if a potential juror and can fairly and impartially serve as a juror.
8
52. Members of the panel may have read books or watched movies or television shows about drug
trafficking in Latin America, such as Narcos, Queen of the South, Scarface, Sicario, Killing
Pablo, and Traffic, to name a few. Members of the panel also may have read books, whether
fiction or non-fiction, about drug trafficking or articles about the topic in newspapers,
magazines, or online. If you have watched or read any of this content, would you have
difficulty setting aside information you may have learned from watching or reading sources
like these, and judge the case based on the evidence and the law as I give it to you? 8
53. During this trial, you may also hear testimony from one or more cooperating witnesses, who
pleaded guilty to illegal activity but are now cooperating with the government in hopes of
receiving a reduced sentence. You will be provided with instructions about assessing the
credibility of any witness, including this type of witness, and after you have heard and observed
the witness, it will be up to you to give the testimony the weight it deserves in your judgment.
Is there anyone who believes that they would not be able to follow the Court’s instructions
with respect to how to evaluate the testimony of witnesses like these and follow the law as I
give it to you regarding cooperating witnesses? 9
8
defendant. Landry v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1988) (ruling defendant’s failure to make
contemporaneous objections to prosecutor’s allegedly improper use of hypotheticals during voir
dire prevented granting relief requested); People v Mapp, 670 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996)
(quoting People v Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)) (“voir dire should not
be converted into a ‘vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective jurors as to a
particular theory or defense . . . .”); People v Bell, 505 NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987)
(stating that questions that attempt to pre-view one party’s theory of the case are improper).
9
Defendant’s Objections: Inappropriate to focus on one aspect of the law. The only
relevant inquiry is whether the juror can follow the Court’s instruction on the law. People v Mapp,
670 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (quoting People v Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1984)) (“voir dire should not be converted into a ‘vehicle for pre-educating and
indoctrinating prospective jurors as to a particular theory or defense . . . .”); People v Bell, 505
NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (stating that questions that attempt to pre-view one party’s
theory of the case are improper).
9
54. You may also hear that some witnesses have been previously convicted of a felony offense.
Would that knowledge make it difficult for you to be fair to that individual? 10
55. During this trial, you may hear testimony regarding emails or other electronic communications
obtained by the government via search warrant. I will instruct you fully at the end of the trial,
but it will be up to you to give this evidence the weight it deserves in your judgment. Is there
anyone who believes they would not be able to follow the Court’s instructions or have
difficulties considering this evidence due to your own beliefs regarding the government’s
lawful use of search warrants to obtain electronic communications? 11
56. Other than civic duty, is there any other reason that you would want to serve as a juror (or as
foreperson of the jury) in this case?
57. You will not be allowed to discuss this case with fellow jurors until all the evidence is presented
to you and the jury begins its deliberations. You will not be allowed to discuss this case or
write or blog or communicate about it electronically it to anyone, including family members,
close friends, or employers, until you have been discharged as jurors. You are not allowed to
10
Defendant’s Objections: It is not appropriate for the government to test the weaknesses
in its case to see if potential jurors will disregard these defects. People v Mapp, 670 N.E.2d 852,
857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (quoting People v Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984))
(“voir dire should not be converted into a ‘vehicle for pre-educating and indoctrinating prospective
jurors as to a particular theory or defense . . . .”); People v Bell, 505 NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App.
Ct. 1987) (stating that questions that attempt to pre-view one party’s theory of the case are
improper).
11
Defendant’s Objections: It is not appropriate for the government to test the quality of its
evidence to see if potential jurors will accept the sufficiency of this evidence. People v Mapp, 670
N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (quoting People v Kendricks, 459 N.E.2d 1137, 1142 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1984)) (“voir dire should not be converted into a ‘vehicle for pre-educating and
indoctrinating prospective jurors as to a particular theory or defense . . . .”); People v Bell, 505
NE2d 365, 372-73 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (stating that questions that attempt to pre-view one party’s
theory of the case are improper).
10
conduct independent investigation or research on the Internet or elsewhere during trial. Is there
anyone who thinks it would be difficult or they would be unable to follow these instructions?
58. To reach a verdict, you must agree on the verdict. That is, any verdict must be unanimous. In
deliberations, you must consider the opinions and points of your fellow jurors. In the final
analysis, however, you must follow your own conscience and be personally satisfied with any
verdict. Would you have difficulty following this principle of law?
59. Do any of you know or recognize anyone else on the jury panel?
60. Would you have any difficulty expressing your own opinions and thoughts about this case to
your fellow jurors? 12
61. Do you feel that you would tend to go along with the majority of jurors, even if you did not
agree, just because you were in the minority? 13
62. Do you know of any reason, or has anything occurred to you during this questioning, that might
in any way prevent you from following my instructions on the law and being completely fair
and impartial as a juror in this case?
63. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, do you have any health or safety concerns about serving
on a jury?
64. If you do have health or safety concerns about serving on a jury due to the COVID-19
pandemic, but are nevertheless selected to serve on this jury, do you think you would have
difficulty focusing on the evidence presented at trial or on your deliberations?
12
Government’s Objection: This question is repetitive of question 58.
13
Government’s Objection: This question is repetitive of question 58 and 60.
11
65. [The parties respectfully request that the Court ask any additional questions it deems
appropriate regarding COVID-19 in light of the pre-trial questionnaires and the Court’s
understanding of the pandemic and its attendant risks at the time of trial.]
66. [If the Court rules that the government is permitted to introduce evidence and elicit testimony
regarding drug trafficking organizations or cartels, without waiving any objection to the
Court’s ruling or to the government’s proposed Question No. 45, above, Ms. Gonzalez reserves
the right to propose an additional question regarding whether potential references to drug
trafficking organizations or cartels may affect a venire member’s ability to serve as a fair and
impartial juror.]
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.: 20-040 (BAH)

)
v. )
)
JESSICA JOHANNA OSEGUERA )
GONZALEZ, )
)
)
Defendant.
PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The parties respectfully submit this set of proposed jury instructions. Pursuant to the
Court’s Standing Order in Criminal Cases, see Dkt. No. 16, this proposed set of instructions sets
each proposed instruction on a new page, and indicates any objections or disagreement by the
parties. Where the specific objection or disagreement listed requires a substantial edit or change
in wording that the objecting party is proposing and cannot be easily captured in the written
objection alone, the parties have included herein a separate, competing instruction.
The first part of this set of proposed jury instructions consists of standard instructions on
which the parties largely agree (i.e. common jury instructions largely taken from the “Red Book”),
with objections noted. The second part consists of substantive offense instructions, and with
respect to which the parties have some disagreement. The parties reserve the right to propose other
instructions as may become appropriate during the course of the trial.
1
Part I: Standard Instructions
The parties request that the Court charge the jury in accordance with the Criminal Jury
Instructions for the District of Columbia (the “Red Book”) or otherwise in its usual manner on the
subjects listed below. Although taken from the Red Book, these instructions are reproduced in
pertinent part in this set of proposed instructions. Any objections are noted in the attached
reproduction of the instructions.
(1) Preliminary Instructions and Instructions During Trial (Red Book 1.101, 1.102, 1.103,
1.104, 1.105, 1.106, 1.107, 1.108, 1.110, 1.201 (if applicable), 1.202, 1.204 (if
applicable)) 1;
(2) Function of the Court and the Jury (Red Book 2.101, 2.102);
(3) Jury’s Recollection (Red Book 2.103);
(4) Evidence by Judicial Notice and Stipulation (Red Book 2.104);
(5) Nature of Charges Not to Be Considered (Red Book 2.110);
(6) Statements of Counsel (Red Book 2.105);
(7) Presumption of Innocence (Red Book 2.107);
(8) Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt (Red Book 2.108);
(9) Function of Indictment and What is Not Evidence (Red Book 2.106);
(10) Number of Witnesses (2.111);
(11) Inadmissible and Stricken Evidence (Red Book 2.112);
(12) Circumstantial Evidence and Direct Evidence (Red Book 2.109);
(13) Credibility of Witnesses (Red Book 2.200);
(14) Witness With Plea Agreement (Red Book 2.203);
(15) Police Officer’s Testimony (Red Book 2.207);
(16) Right of Defendant Not to Testify (if applicable) (Red Book 2.208);
1
Because preliminary instructions and instructions during trial tend to vary among judges, the
parties have not reproduced them here and defers to the Court for their specific wording.
2
(17) Defendant as Witness (if applicable) (Red Book 2.209);
(18) Character of Defendant (if applicable) (Red Book 2.213);
(19) Cross-Examination of Character Witness (if applicable) (Red Book 2.214);
(20) Expert Testimony (if applicable) (Red Book 2.215);
(21) Other Crimes Evidence (if applicable) (Red Book 2.321);
(22) Translation of Foreign Language Documents (Red Book 2.311);
(23) Multiple Counts (Red Book 2.402);
(24) Proof of State of Mind (Red Book 3.101);
(25) Proof of “On or About” Dates (Red Book 3.103);
(26) Aiding and Abetting (Red Book 3.200);
(27) Furnishing the Jury with a Copy of the Instructions (Red Book 2.100);
(28) Unanimity (Red Book 2.405, 2.406);
(29) Verdict Form Explanation (Red Book 2.407);
(30) Instructions as to Deliberation (Red Book 2.500, 2.501, 2.502, 2.505, 2.507, 2.508,
2.509, 2.510, 2.511);
(31) Defendant’s Theory of the Case – Note (Red Book 9.100).
3
Proposed Instruction No. 1

Preliminary Instructions and Instructions During Trial
Because preliminary instructions and instructions during trial tend to vary among judges, the
parties have not reproduced them here and defers to the Court for their specific wording.
Source: Red Book 1.101, 1.102, 1.103, 1.104, 1.105, 1.106, 1.107, 1.108, 1.110, 1.201 (if
applicable), 1.202, 1.204 (if applicable)
4

Function of the Court and the Jury
My function 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 them.
Your function, 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 decide the credibility or
believability of the witnesses.
As human beings, we all have personal likes and dislikes, opinions, prejudices, and biases.
Generally, we are aware of these things, but you also should consider the possibility that you
have implicit biases, that is, biases of which you may not be consciously aware. Personal
prejudices, preferences, or biases have no place in a courtroom, where our goal is to arrive at a
just and impartial verdict. All people deserve fair treatment in our system of justice regardless of
any personal characteristic, such as race, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, disability, sex,
gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, education, or income level. You should
determine the facts solely from a fair consideration of the evidence. You should decide the case
without prejudice, fear, sympathy, favoritism or consideration of public opinion.
You may not take anything I may have said or done as indicating how I think you should decide
this case. If you believe that I have expressed or indicated any such opinion, you should ignore it.
The verdict in this case is your sole and exclusive responsibility.
Source: Red Book 2.101, 2.102
5

Jury’s Recollection
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.
Source: Red Book 2.103
6

Evidence by Judicial Notice and Stipulation
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, [if applicable: the facts of which I took judicial notice], [if applicable:
and the facts and testimony stipulated to by the parties].
[If applicable: I may take what is called “judicial notice” of public acts, places, facts, and events
that I consider to be matters of common knowledge or matters that can be determined easily
through undisputed sources. In this case, I took judicial notice of [describe fact of which the
court took judicial notice]. When I take judicial notice of a particular fact, you may [if you
choose to do so] regard that fact as proven evidence. [Because you are the sole judges of the
facts, however, you are not required to accept any fact that is judicially noted.]]
[If applicable: During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulated—that is, agreed—to
certain facts. You should consider any stipulation of fact to be undisputed evidence.]
[If applicable: During the trial, you were told that the parties had stipulated—that is, agreed—to
what testimony [name of witness] would have given if s/he had testified in this case. You should
consider this stipulated testimony to be exactly what s/he would have said had s/he testified
here.]
When you consider the evidence, you are permitted to draw, from the facts that you find have
been proven, such reasonable inferences as you feel are justified in the light of your experience.
You should give any evidence such weight as in your judgment it is fairly entitled to receive.
7

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 itself would affect your ability to reach a fair and impartial verdict. We asked you
that question because you must not allow the nature of a charge to affect your verdict. You must
consider only the evidence that has been presented in this case in reaching a fair and impartial
verdict.
8

Statements of Counsel Not Evidence
The statements and arguments of the lawyers are not evidence. They are only intended to assist
you in understanding the evidence. Similarly, the questions of the lawyers are not evidence.
9

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 she is
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts throughout the trial. The law does not
require Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez to prove her 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 Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is charged, it is your duty to
find her guilty of that offense. On the other hand, if you find the government has failed to prove
any element of a particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt, it is your duty to find Jessica
Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez not guilty of that offense.
10

Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt
The government has the burden of proving Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez 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
government’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt, as the name implies, is a doubt based on reason—a 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
defendant’s 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 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.
11

Function of the Indictment and What is Not Evidence
The indictment is merely the formal way of accusing a person of a crime. You must not consider
the indictment as evidence of any kind—you may not consider it as any evidence of Jessica
Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez’s guilt or draw any inference of guilt from it.
12

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 find that the testimony of a smaller
number of witnesses on one side is more believable than the testimony of a greater number of
witnesses on the other side or you might find the opposite.
13

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 part s/he represents. It is the
lawyers’ responsibility to object to evidence that they believe is not admissible.
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. Likewise,
exhibits as to which I have sustained an objection or that I ordered stricken are not evidence, and
you must not consider them in your deliberations.
14

Circumstantial and Direct Evidence
There are two types of evidence from which you may determine what the facts are in this case—
direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. When a witness, such as an eyewitness, asserts
actual knowledge of a fact, that witness’s testimony is direct evidence. On the other hand,
evidence of facts and circumstances from which reasonable inferences may be drawn is
circumstantial evidence.
Let me give you an example. 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 to sleep and saw snow on the
ground after he woke up. 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 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.
15

Credibility of Witnesses
In determining whether the government has proved the charges against the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt, you must consider the testimony of all the witnesses who have testified.
You are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. You alone determine whether to
believe any witness and the extent to which a witness should be believed. Judging a witness’s
credibility means evaluating whether the witness has testified truthfully and also whether the
witness accurately observed, recalled, and described the matters about which the witness
testified.
You may consider anything that in your judgment affects the credibility of any witness. For
example, you may consider the demeanor and the behavior of the witness on the witness stand;
the witness’s manner of testifying; whether the witness impresses you as a truthful person;
whether the witness impresses you as having an accurate memory; whether the witness has any
reason for not telling the truth; whether the witness had a meaningful opportunity to observe the
matters about which he or she has testified; whether the witness has any interest in the outcome
of this case, stands to gain anything by testifying, or has friendship or hostility toward other
people concerned with this case.
In evaluating the accuracy of a witness’s memory, you may consider the circumstances
surrounding the event, including the time that elapsed between the event and any later
recollections of the event, and the circumstances under which the witness was asked to recall
details of the event.
You may consider whether there are any consistencies or inconsistencies in a witness’s
testimony or between the witness’s testimony and any previous statements made by the witness.
You may also consider any consistencies or inconsistencies between the witness’s testimony and
any other evidence that you credit. You may consider whether any inconsistencies are the result
of lapses in memory, mistake, misunderstanding, intentional falsehood, or differences in
perception.
You may consider the reasonableness or unreasonableness, 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 evidence that you
credit.
If you believe that any witness has shown him or herself to be biased or prejudiced, for or against
either side in this trial, or motivated by self-interest, 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.
16

Witness With a Plea Agreement
You have heard evidence that [name of witness] entered into a plea agreement with the
government pursuant to which [name of witness] agreed to testify truthfully in this case and the
government agreed to bring [name of witness’s] cooperation to the attention of his sentencing
judge and consider filing papers with his judge which would permit that judge to impose a more
lenient sentence than that judge might otherwise be able to impose.
The government is permitted to enter into this kind of plea agreement. You, in turn, may accept
the testimony of such a witness in determining whether you are convinced of the defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A witness who has entered into a plea agreement is under the
same obligation to tell the truth as is any other witness; the plea agreement does not protect him
against a prosecution for perjury or false statement, should he lie under oath.
However, you may consider whether a witness who has entered into such an agreement has an
interest different from other types of witnesses. You may consider whether the plea agreement
the witness entered into with the government 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.
Source: Red Book 2.203.
17

Police Officer’s Testimony
A police officer’s testimony should be evaluated by you just as any other evidence in the case.
In evaluating the officer’s credibility, 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 of any witness merely because s/he is a police officer.
18

Right of Defendant Not to Testify
[If applicable:] Every defendant in a criminal case has an absolute right not to testify. Jessica
Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez has chosen to exercise this right. You must not hold this decision
against her, and it would be improper for you to speculate as to the reason or reasons for her
decision. You must not assume the defendant is guilty because she chose not to testify.
19

Defendant as Witness
[If applicable:] A defendant has a right to become a witness in her own behalf. Her testimony
should not be disbelieved merely because she is a defendant. In evaluating her testimony,
however, you may consider the fact that the defendant has an interest in the outcome of this trial.
As with the testimony of any other witness, you should give the defendant’s testimony as much
weight as in your judgment it deserves.
20

Character of Defendant
[If applicable:] Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez has introduced testimony that she has a good
reputation in the community for [character trait] [in the witness’s opinion, Jessica Johanna
Oseguera Gonzalez is a [character trait] person]. Such evidence may indicate to you that it is
unlikely that a [character trait] person would commit the crime charged or it may not. You may
consider this evidence along with other evidence in the case [including evidence that contradicts
Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez’s character evidence] and give it as much weight as you
think it deserves.
Notwithstanding the evidence of character, if, after weighing all the evidence, you are convinced
beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is guilty of the crime
charged, it is your duty to find her guilty. On the other hand, evidence of good character alone
may create a reasonable doubt as to a defendant’s guilt, although without it the other evidence
would be convincing.
Government Objection: The government does not object to the text of the character instruction,
if applicable, but reserves the right to object to the introduction of character evidence as
irrelevant, inappropriate under the applicable rules, and/or inadmissible. The government has
not received any notice of the defendant’s intent to call any character witnesses and notes that
the defendant has not yet identified the character traits that she suggests would be appropriately
at issue in this matter.
21

Cross-Examination of Character Witness
[If applicable]: [Name of witness], who was a character witness for Jessica Johanna Oseguera
Gonzalez, was questioned regarding [prior acts] of Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez. These
questions were permitted only to test the basis for and reliability of the witness’s testimony.
They do not establish that those events took place or that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
committed the offense charged in this case, or that she is a person of bad character.
Government Objection: See objection to previous proposed instruction.
22

Expert Testimony
[If applicable:] In this case, you heard the testimony of [name of witness] who expressed
opinions concerning [certain subjects; specify the subject(s), if possible]. If scientific, technical,
or other specialized knowledge might assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in
determining a fact in issue, a witness who possesses knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education may testify and state an opinion concerning such matters. You are not bound to accept
this witness’s opinion. If you find that the opinion 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 the opinion. You
should consider this evidence with all the other evidence in the case and give it as much weight
as you think it fairly deserves.
23

Other Crimes Evidence
[If applicable:] You have heard evidence that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez had a role in
keeping accounts or ledgers for drug trafficking in Mexico, and that doing so supported the
actions of the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion. It is up to you to decide whether to accept that
evidence.
If you find that the defendant had a role in keeping accounts or ledgers for drug trafficking, you
may use this evidence only for the limited purpose of deciding whether the government has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez acted willfully and
on purpose, and not by mistake or by accident, in relation to the violations of the Kingpin Act
that the government has alleged.
You may not use this evidence for any other purpose. Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is only
on trial for the crimes charged. She is not charged in this case with any offense relating to drug
trafficking, and you may not use this evidence to conclude that she has a bad character, or that
she has a criminal personality. The law does not allow you to convict Jessica Johanna Oseguera
Gonzalez simply because you believe she may have done bad things not specifically charged as
crimes in this case.

Defense Objection: The government’s motion to introduce this Rule 404(b) evidence was denied.
Accordingly, this instruction is not appropriate. The defendant also proposes that “knowingly
and” should be inserted before “willfully” in the second paragraph. In order to establish a
willful violation of a statute, the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge
that her conduct was unlawful. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 190 (1998).
Government Response: The Court’s ruling on this Rule 404(b) evidence allows that it may be
admissible if the defense opens the door to it during trial. Thus, the instruction is proposed here
for use if applicable. The government objects to changing the wording to “knowingly and
willfully” in the second paragraph for the reasons explained in more detail in the substantive
instructions.
24

Translation of Foreign Language Documents
[The government proposes that a version of this instruction also be given when the first
translated document is introduced at trial.] In this trial, I admitted into evidence documents in
the Spanish language along with English translations.
Although some of you may know Spanish, it is important that all jurors consider the same
evidence. Therefore, you must accept the English translation contained in the transcript.
If, however, you have a question as to the accuracy of the English translation, you should bring
this matter to my attention immediately. You should not ask your question or make any comment
about the translation in the presence of the other jurors, or otherwise share your question or
concern with any of them. I will take steps to see if your question can be answered and any
discrepancy resolved. If, however, after such efforts a discrepancy remains, you must rely only
upon the official English translation and not on your own translation.
Defense objection: The government has not identified the translations it intends to offer at trial
within its over 50,000 pages of discovery. Therefore, counsel has not had an opportunity to
verify the accuracy of any translations and, for this reason, she objects.
Government response: The government has already provided the defendant with a number of
draft translations. The government will provide the remainder of the draft translations before
the pretrial conference.
25

Multiple Counts
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
count. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty or not guilty on any one count of the
indictment should not influence your verdict with respect to any other count of the indictment.
26

Proof of State of Mind
Someone’s willfulness or knowledge ordinarily cannot be proved directly, because there is no
way of knowing what a person is actually thinking, but you may infer someone’s willfulness or
knowledge from the surrounding circumstances. You may consider any statement made or acts
done or omitted by Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, and all other facts and circumstances
received in evidence which indicate her willfulness or knowledge.
You may infer, but are not required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable
consequences of acts she intentionally did or intentionally did not do. It is entirely up to you,
however, to decide what facts to find from the evidence 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 Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
acted with the necessary state of mind.
Source: Red Book 3.101 (modified to include “willfulness”)
Defense Objection: The defendant submits that the instruction should be worded “willfulness
and knowledge.” In order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the government must prove
that the defendant acted with knowledge that her conduct was unlawful. Bryan v. United States,
524 U.S. 184, 190 (1998).
Government Response: As set forth in the proposed substantive instructions, some of the
elements of the charges require proof of “willfulness” as defined in the instructions, and others
require proof that an entity “knowingly” participated in an OFAC violation. No element
requires both that the government show that the defendant “willfully” and “knowingly” engaged
in the particular element, thus, the conjunctive is not appropriate.
27

Proof of “On or About” Dates
The indictment charges that the offense of engaging in transactions or dealings in violation of the
Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act was committed beginning “on or about” September
17, 2015. The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense. It is
sufficient if the evidence in the case establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense was
committed on a date reasonably near the date alleged.
Defense Objection: The defendant submits that “knowingly and willfully” should be inserted
before “engaging” in the first sentence of this instruction. In order to establish a willful
violation of a statute, the government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that
her conduct was unlawful. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 190 (1998).
Government Response: The standard jury instruction as to proof of “on our about” dates does
not need to repeat the mens rea requirements for which the jury will be separately charged in
detail. Moreover, the conjunctive in “knowingly and willfully” is not warranted by the elements
of the crimes charged.
28

Aiding and Abetting
You may find Jessica Johanna Osegeura Gonzalez guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment
without finding that she personally committed each of the acts that make up the crime. Any
person who in some way intentionally participates in the commission of a crime can be found
guilty either as an aider and abettor or as a principal offender. It makes no difference which label
you attach. The person is as guilty of the crime as she would be if she had personally committed
each of the acts that make up the crime.
To find that a defendant aided and abetted in committing a crime, you must find that the
defendant knowingly associated herself with the commission of the crime, that she participated
in the crime as something she wished to bring about, and that she intended by her actions to
make it succeed.
Some affirmative conduct by the defendant in planning or carrying out the crime is necessary.
The government is not required to prove that anyone discussed or agreed upon a specific time or
method of committing the crime. The government is not required to prove that the crime was
committed in the particular way planned or agreed upon. Nor need the government prove that the
principal offender and the person alleged to be the aider and abettor directly communicated with
each other.
I have already instructed you on the elements of the offenses with which Jessica Johanna
Oseguera Gonzalez is charged. With respect to the charges of engaging in transactions or
dealings in violation of the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, regardless of whether
Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is an aider and abettor or a principal offender, the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
personally acted willfully and/or knowingly within the meanings of the instructions I have
already provided.
Defense Objection: The defense submits that “and willfully” should be included after
“knowingly” in the second paragraph, that “knowingly and willfully” should be added before
“engaging in transactions” in the final paragraph, and that “willfully and/or knowingly” should
be replaced with “knowingly and willfully” in the final sentence.
Government Response: The standard Red Book instruction does not include “willfully” in the
second paragraph and it is not warranted here. Additionally, there is no need for unwarranted
repetition of the mens rea requirements of the Kingpin Act charges for which the jury will be
otherwise instructed, and the conjunctive in “knowingly and willfully” is inappropriate for the
reasons set forth elsewhere in these instructions.
29
Defense Response: The government’s proposed instruction would allow the government to
convict the defendant under a lesser mens rea, should the jury find that defendant was aiding
and abetting the offense.
30

Providing Jury With Copy of Instructions
I will provide you with a copy of my instructions. During your deliberations, you may, if you
want, refer to these instructions. While you may refer to any particular portion of the
instructions, you are to consider the instructions as a whole and you may not follow some and
ignore others. If you have any questions about the instructions, you should feel free to send me a
note. Please return your instructions to me when your verdict is rendered.
31

Unanimity
A verdict must represent the considered judgment of each juror, and in order to return a verdict,
each juror must agree on the verdict. In other words, your verdict on each count must be
unanimous.
32

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 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.
33

Instructions as to Deliberation: Redacted Exhibits
[If applicable:] During the course of this trial, a number of exhibits were admitted in evidence.
Sometimes only portions of an exhibit were admitted, such as a document with some words or
pictures blacked out or otherwise removed. There are a variety of reasons why only a portion of
an exhibit is admitted, including that the other portions are inadmissible or implicate an
individual’s privacy. As you examine the exhibits, and you see or hear portions where there
appear to be omissions, you should consider only the portions that were admitted. You should
not guess as to what has been taken out or why, and you should not hold it against either party.
You are to decide the facts only from the evidence that is before you.
34

Instructions as to Deliberation: 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 verdict. Please keep in mind that
exhibits that were only marked for identification but were not admitted into evidence will not be
given to you to examine or consider in reaching your verdict.
35

Instructions as to Deliberation: 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, be
mindful of your mission—to reach a fair and just verdict based on the evidence. Consider
selecting a 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.
36

Instructions as to Deliberation: Possible Punishment Not Relevant
The question of possible punishment of the defendant in the event 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 in this case, and you should not consider the matter of punishment
at all.
37

Instructions as to Deliberation: Witness’s and Defendant’s Use of Interpreter
Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez used the services of an interpreter in this trial. As I have
previously instructed you, you should not be biased for or against Jessica Johanna Oseguera
Gonzalez for using an interpreter. Do not permit that fact to influence you in any way.
The fact that the court has provided an interpreter to Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez does
not mean that the court has made a ruling on the extent of her ability to speak or understand the
English language. Use of an interpreter should not be considered evidence in this case.
You have heard testimony from [name of witness], who communicated through an interpreter in
this trial.
You are to consider only the evidence provided through the official court interpreters. Although
some of you may know Spanish, it is important that all jurors consider the same evidence.
Therefore, you must base your decision on the evidence presented in the English interpretation.
You must disregard any different meaning.
As I have previously instructed you, you should not be biased for or against anyone who uses an
interpreter. Do not permit the fact that [name of witness] used the services of an interpreter to
influence you in any way.
You should not consider the mere fact that [name of witness] was provided an interpreter in
evaluating his credibility. You must evaluate interpreted testimony as you would any other
testimony. That is, you must not give interpreted testimony any greater or lesser weight than you
would if the witness had spoken English.
If you observed that the witness nodded his/her head during interpretation, you should consider
that this did not necessarily indicate agreement or an affirmative answer but may have only
indicated that the witness was following the translation.
38

Instructions as to Deliberation: Cautionary Instruction on Publicity, Communication, and
Research
I would like to remind you that, in some cases, although not necessarily this one, there may be
reports in the newspaper or on the radio, internet, or television concerning this case. If there
should be such media coverage in this case, you may be tempted to read, listen to, or watch it.
You must not read, listen to, or watch such 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, 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 also wish to remind you of an instruction I gave
you at the beginning of the trial. During deliberations, you may not communicate with anyone
not on the jury about this case. This includes any electronic communication such as email or text
or any blogging about the case. In addition, you may not conduct any independent investigation
during deliberations. This means you may not conduct any research in person or electronically
via the internet or in another way.
39

Instructions as to Deliberation: Communications Between Court and Jury
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send a note
by the clerk or marshal, signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury. No
member of the jury should try to communicate with me except by such a signed note, and I will
never 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 person—not the
clerk, the marshal or me—how 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 matter—for example, 6-6 or 7-5 or 11-1, or in any other fashion—whether the
vote is for conviction or acquittal or on any other issue in the case.
40

Instructions as to Deliberation: Attitude and Conduct of Jurors
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 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 matter, but you are judges of the facts.
41

Instructions as to Deliberation: Excusing Alternate Jurors
[If applicable:] The last thing I must do before you begin your deliberations is to excuse the
alternate jurors. As I told you before, the selection of alternates was an entirely random process;
it’s nothing personal. We selected [two] seats to be the alternate seats before any of you entered
the courtroom. Since the rest of you have remained healthy and attentive, I can now excuse those
jurors in seats [insert seat numbers].
Before you [two] leave, I am going to ask you to tear out a page from your notebook, and to
write down your name and daytime phone number and hand this to the clerk. I do this because it
is possible, though unlikely, that we will need to summon you back to rejoin the jury in case
something happens to a regular juror. Since that possibility exists, I am also going to instruct you
not to discuss the case with anyone until we call you. My earlier instruction on use of the Internet
still applies; do not research this case or communicate about it on the Internet. In all likelihood,
we will be calling you to tell you there has been a verdict and you are now free to discuss the
case; there is, however, the small chance that we will need to bring you back on to the jury.
Thank you very much for your service, and please report back to the jury office to turn in your
badge on your way out.
42

Defense Theory of the Case
[Ms. Gonzalez reserves the right to submit a Defense Theory of the Case instruction to the Court
prior to the Court’s presentation of the final jury instructions to the jury in this matter.]
Government Objection: The government reserves the right to object as appropriate to the
substance of a defense theory instruction.
43
Part II: Substantive Offense Instructions
The parties request that the Court charge the jury as to the substantive offenses charged in
accordance with the instructions proposed herein. Where the parties have not been able to agree,
they have submitted alternative instructions, noting objections and responses where appropriate.
To aid the Court’s review of the differences between the parties’ proposed instructions, the
defendant’s alternate proposed instructions are included herein with a “redline” comparison.
44
Government’s Proposed Instruction No. 40

Violation of Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act
Counts One through Five of the Indictment charge the defendant with a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
1904 and 1906, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, or the “Kingpin Act.” The
Kingpin Act prohibits any United States person from engaging in any transaction or dealing with
a significant foreign narcotics trafficker without prior authorization from the United States
Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”).
Each count of the Indictment alleges two possible ways that the defendant violated the Kingpin
Act. To find the defendant guilty on any one of the counts, you only need to find that she
violated the Kingpin Act in either one of the two possible ways; you do not need to find that she
committed both types of violations in any one count. You do, however, need to be unanimous as
to which of these two ways she violated the Kingpin Act, in order to find her guilty on any given
count.
The two ways that that I am about to describe in which the defendant can be found guilty of
violating the Kingpin Act apply to each of the 5 counts that the defendant is charged with. Let
me first describe these two ways and then I will detail the five specific counts in the Indictment.
The first possible form of violation, which is alleged in all five counts, is that the defendant
willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or interests in property of an entity or
person designated as materially assisting, or providing support to, or providing goods and
services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of the significant foreign
narcotics trafficker known as the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion, without first obtaining a
license from OFAC.
The essential elements of this way of violating the Kingpin Act, each of which the government
must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are:
1. That the defendant is a United States person.

2. That the defendant endeavored, engaged, or attempted to engage in a
transaction or dealing in property, or interests in property, with a foreign
person, without first obtaining a license from OFAC.
3. That the foreign person with whom the defendant had a transaction or
dealing was designated by OFAC under the Kingpin Act.
4. That the defendant willfully endeavored, engaged, or attempted to engage
in a transaction or dealing with the designated foreign person.
Now, as for the second way in which the government has alleged that the defendant has violated
the Kingpin Act in the five counts of the Indictment, the government has alleged that the
defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings to evade or avoid, or that had the effect of
aiding or avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests
in property of an entity or person designated as materially assisting, or providing support to, or
providing goods and services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of the
significant foreign narcotics trafficker known as the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion.
45
The essential elements of this second way of violating the Kingpin Act, each of which the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are:

2. That the defendant engaged in a transaction or dealing that evaded or
avoided, or that had the effect of evading or avoiding, the legal prohibition
on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests in property
of an entity or person designated by OFAC under the Kingpin Act.
3. That the defendant willfully engaged in such a transaction or dealing.
As I said, each of the five counts of the Indictment allege both of these possible ways of
violating the Kingpin Act. For each count, either one of these two ways alone is sufficient to
find the defendant guilty of the count, and you may render a guilty verdict on a particular count
as long as you unanimously find that the government has proved the elements of one of these
ways beyond a reasonable doubt for the count you are deciding. Of course, it’s possible that you
may find that the government proved the elements of both ways of violating the Kingpin Act
beyond a reasonable doubt, even though you are not required to.
Now, let me summarize each of the five counts, bearing in mind that each of these five counts
alleges both of the ways of violating the Kingpin Act that I’ve just described.
Count One alleges that the defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of J&P Advertising, S.A. de C.V., or that the defendant engaged in
transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of evading or avoiding, the
prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests in property of J&P
Advertising, S.A. de C.V.
Count Two alleges that the defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of JJGON S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., or that the defendant engaged in
transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of evading or avoiding, the
prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests in property of JJGON
S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V.
Count Three alleges that the defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property
or interests in property of Las Flores Cabanas, also known as Cabanas Las Flores, or that the
defendant engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of
evading or avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of Las Flores Cabanas, also known as Cabanas Las Flores.
Count Four alleges that the defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A. de C.V., also
known as Kenzo Sushi, or that the defendant engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or
avoided, or that had the effect of evading or avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions
or dealings in property or interests in property of Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los
Famosos, S.A. de C.V., also known as Kenzo Sushi.
46
Count Five alleges that the defendant willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of Onze Black, also known as Tequila Onze Black, or that the defendant
engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of evading or
avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests in
property of Onze Black, also known as Tequila Onze Black.
Definitions
Now that I have provided you with the elements for Counts One through Five, let me provide
some definitions that apply to all of these counts.
At all times relevant to this prosecution, it was unlawful to engage in transactions or dealings in
property, or interests in property, with a foreign person designated as “significant foreign
narcotics trafficker” or designated as materially assisting in the international narcotics trafficking
activities of a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” without prior approval in the form of a
license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department of the Treasury.
The term “person” as used in these elements can be either an individual or an entity.
The term “United States person” means any United States citizen or national, permanent resident
alien, an entity organized under the laws of the United States (including its foreign branches), or
any person within the United States.
The term “foreign person” means any citizen or national of a foreign state or any entity not
organized under the laws of the United States, such as an entity organized under the laws of a
foreign country.
The terms “property” and “interests in property” include but are not limited to money, checks,
bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, obligations, any other financial instruments, bills of
lading, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership, or indebtedness, letters of credit and
any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares,
merchandise, real estate mortgages, vendors’ sales agreements, land contracts, leaseholds,
ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, book accounts, accounts payable,
judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any
nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or
interest or interests therein, whether present, future, or contingent. 2
2
Government’s Note: The definition of “property” contained in 31 C.F.R. § 598.312, from
which this definition is taken, is more expansive than the government has drafted here in that it
contains a number of additional examples of types of property. In order to streamline the
instruction and minimize any potential for jury confusion, but without risking losing the
definition’s inclusive character, the government has included only those types of property that
are broadly related to those that it anticipates being in evidence at trial. Alternatively, this
instruction can be revisited at the final charge conference so that the jury is instructed only as to
those forms of property that were arguably entered into evidence at trial.
47
Source: 21 U.S.C. §§ 1904(b) and 1906(a); 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (definition of “person,” “United
States person,” and “foreign person”); 31 C.F.R. § 598.312 (definition of “property”); United
States v. Balagia, No. 4:16-cr-176 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 438 at 25-27. 3
Defense Objection: See Defendant’s Proposed Instruction No. 40.
3
Government’s Note: Balagia is the only case of which the government is aware in which the
Kingpin Act has been tried to a jury, and therefore the only case in which Kingpin Act jury
instructions have been given.
48
Defendant’s Proposed Instruction No. 40

Violation of Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act
Counts One through Five of the Indictment charge the defendant with a violatingon of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 1904 and 1906, the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, or the “Kingpin Act.” The
Kingpin Act prohibits any United States person from knowingly and willfully engaging in any
transaction or dealing with any entity that has been designated by the United States Department
of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) a significant foreign narcotics trafficker
without prior authorization from OFAC. the United States Department of Treasury Office of
Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). 4
Each count of the Indictment alleges two possible ways that the defendant allegedly violated the
Kingpin Act. To find the defendant guilty on any one of the counts, the Government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant you only need to find that she violated the Kingpin
Act in either one of the two possible ways; you do not need to find that she committed both types
of violations in any one count. IYou do, however,n order to find the defendant guilty on any
given count, you must unanimously agree that the government has proven the defendant’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. need to be unanimous as to which of these two ways she violated the
Kingpin Act, in order to find her guilty on any given count.
The two ways that that I am about to describe in which the defendant can be found guilty of
violating the Kingpin Act apply to each of the five5 counts that the defendant is charged with.
Let me first describe these two ways and then I will detail the five specific counts in the
Indictment.
First, it is alleged in The first possible form of violation, which is alleged in all five counts , is
that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or dealings in property or
interests in property of an entity or person designated by OFAC, as materially assisting, or
providing support to, or providing goods and services in support of, the international narcotics
trafficking activities of the significant foreign narcotics trafficker known as the Cartel de Jalisco
Nueva Generacion, without first obtaining a license from OFAC. 5
The essential elements of this allegation, each of which the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, way of violating the Kingpin Act, each of which the government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt, are:

6. That the defendant knowingly and willfully endeavored, engaged, or
attempted to engage in a transaction or dealing in property, or interests in
property, with a foreign person.
7. That the foreign person with whom the defendant had a transaction or
dealing was designated by OFAC under the Kingpin Act.
4
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
5
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
49
8. That the defendant knowingly and willfully endeavored, engaged, or

attempted to engage in a transaction or dealing with the designated foreign
person.
Second, it is alleged in all five counts Now, as for the second way in which the government has
alleged that the defendant has violated the Kingpin Act in the five counts of the Indictment, the
government has alleged that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings to evade or avoid, or that had the effect of aiding or avoiding, the prohibition on
engaging in transactions or dealings in property or interests in property of an entity or person
designated by OFAC.as materially assisting, or providing support to, or providing goods and
services in support of, the international narcotics trafficking activities of the significant foreign
narcotics trafficker known as the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion. 6
The elements of this allegation, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable
doubt, are:
The essential elements of this second way of violating the Kingpin Act, each of which the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are:

5. That the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in a transaction or
dealing that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of evading or
avoiding, the legal prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in
property or interests in property of an entity or person designated by
OFAC under the Kingpin Act.
6. That the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in such a transaction
or dealing.
As I said, each of the five counts of the Indictment allege both of these possible ways of
violating the Kingpin Act. For each count, either one of these two ways alone is sufficient to
find the defendant guilty of the count, and you may render a guilty verdict on a particular count
as long as you unanimously find that the government has proved the elements of one of these
ways beyond a reasonable doubt for the count you are deciding. Of course, it’s possible that you
may find that the government proved the elements of both ways of violating the Kingpin Act
beyond a reasonable doubt, even though you are not required to.
Now, let me summarize each of the five counts in the Indictment, bearing in mind that each of
these five counts alleges both of the ways of violating the Kingpin Act that I’ve just described.
Count One alleges that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings in property or interests in property of J&P Advertising, S.A. de C.V., or that the
interests in property of J&P Advertising, S.A. de C.V.
6
Fed. R. Evid. 403.
50
Count Two alleges that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings in property or interests in property of JJGON S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V., or that the
interests in property of JJGON S.P.R. de R.L. de C.V.
Count Three alleges that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings in property or interests in property of Las Flores Cabanas, also known as Cabanas Las
Flores, or that the defendant engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that
had the effect of evading or avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in
property or interests in property of Las Flores Cabanas, also known as Cabanas Las Flores.
Count Four alleges that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings in property or interests in property of Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los Famosos,
S.A. de C.V., also known as Kenzo Sushi and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A.P.I. de C.V., or that
the defendant engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the effect of
interests in property of Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A. de C.V., also
known as Kenzo Sushi and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A.P.I. de C.V.
Count Five alleges that the defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in transactions or
dealings in property or interests in property of Onze Black, also known as Tequila Onze Black,
or that the defendant engaged in transactions or dealings that evaded or avoided, or that had the
effect of evading or avoiding, the prohibition on engaging in transactions or dealings in property
or interests in property of Onze Black, also known as Tequila Onze Black.
Definitions
Now that I have provided you with the elements for Counts One through Five, let me provide
some definitions that apply to all of these counts.
At all times relevant to this prosecution, it was unlawful to engage in transactions or dealings in
property, or interests in property, with a foreign person designated as “significant foreign
narcotics trafficker” or designated as materially assisting in the international narcotics trafficking
activities of a “significant foreign narcotics trafficker” without prior approval in the form of a
license issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department of the Treasury.
The term “person” as used in these elements can be either an individual or an entity.
The term “United States person” means any United States citizen or national, permanent resident
alien, an entity organized under the laws of the United States (including its foreign branches), or
any person within the United States.
The term “foreign person” means any citizen or national of a foreign state or any entity not
organized under the laws of the United States, such as an entity organized under the laws of a
foreign country.
51
The terms “property” and “interests in property” as defined by the Code of Federal Regulations,
include but are not limited to “money, checks, drafts, bullion, bank deposits, savings accounts,
debts, indebtedness, obligations, notes, guarantees, debentures, stocks, bonds, coupons, any other
financial instruments, bankers acceptances, mortgages, pledges, liens or other rights in the nature
of security, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, trust receipts, bills of sale, any other evidences of
title, ownership, or indebtedness, letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or
obligations thereunder, powers of attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, chattels, stocks on hand,
ships, goods on ships, real estate mortgages, deeds of trust, vendors’ sales agreements, land
contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, options, negotiable
instruments, trade acceptances, royalties, book accounts, accounts payable, judgments, patents,
trademarks or copyrights, insurance policies, safe deposit boxes and their contents, annuities,
pooling agreements, services of any nature whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and
any other property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein,
whether present, future, or contingent.”
money, checks, bank deposits, savings accounts, debts, obligations, any other financial
instruments, bills of lading, bills of sale, any other evidences of title, ownership, or indebtedness,
letters of credit and any documents relating to any rights or obligations thereunder, powers of
attorney, goods, wares, merchandise, real estate mortgages, vendors’ sales agreements, land
contracts, leaseholds, ground rents, real estate and any other interest therein, book accounts,
accounts payable, judgments, patents, trademarks or copyrights, services of any nature
whatsoever, contracts of any nature whatsoever, and any other property, real, personal, or mixed,
tangible or intangible, or interest or interests therein, whether present, future, or contingent. 7
The Court has taken Judicial Notice and you are ordered to accept as a fact that the Code of
Federal Regulations is the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the
Federal Register by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government, and it exceeds
175,000 pages.
Source: 21 U.S.C. §§ 1904(b) and 1906(a); 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (definition of “person,” “United
States person,” and “foreign person”); 31 C.F.R. § 598.312 (definition of “property”); United
States v. Balagia, No. 4:16-cr-176 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 438 at 25-27. 8
Government Objection: First, the defendant proposes changing “willfully” to “knowingly and
willfully” in nearly every instance. This would not be a correct statement of the law. 21 U.S.C.
§ 1906(a)(1), which is at the core of the charges in the Superseding Indictment, makes it a crime
to “willfully” violate the provisions of the Kingpin Act. Separately, 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a)(2) sets
forth penalties for an officer, director, or agent of an entity who “knowingly” participates in a
7
Government’s Note: The definition of “property” contained in 31 C.F.R. § 598.312,
from which this definition is taken, is more expansive than the government has drafted here in
that it contains a number of additional examples of types of property. In order to streamline the
instruction and minimize any potential for jury confusion, but without risking losing the
definition’s inclusive character, the government has included only those types of property that
are broadly related to those that it anticipates being in evidence at trial.
8
Government’s Note: Balagia is the only case of which the government is aware in which the
Kingpin Act has been tried to a jury, and therefore the only case in which Kingpin Act jury
instructions have been given.
52
violation of the Kingpin Act. In this case, the jury must separately consider whether the
defendant violated subsection (a)(1), both subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), or neither. This
particular instruction concerns subsection (a)(1). The “officer, director, or agent” language of
subsection (a)(2), and its requirement of “knowingly,” is covered in a later instruction. Thus, to
require the jury to find that the defendant “knowingly and willfully” committed a violation of
subsection (a)(1) improperly adds to the government’s burden of proof and imports a
“knowingly” requirement that is not found in the statute.
Second, the defendant duplicatively adds “beyond a reasonable doubt” in multiple places. The
jury is already instructed that it must find every element beyond a reasonable doubt, so the
repetition is unnecessary.
Third, the defendant’s expansion of the definition of property from the Code of Federal
Regulations is likely to confuse the jury, and the description of judicial notice of the length of the
entire Code of Federal Regulations is irrelevant and argumentative. “Ordering” the jury to
“accept” the length of the Code of Federal Regulations has no bearing on the elements of the
government’s proof.
Finally, there is no need to conceal the name of the law, the “Foreign Narcotics Kingpin
Designation Act,” from the jury. It should be referred to by its enacted title at least initially and
only thereafter referred to by the defined term “Kingpin Act.”
Defendant’s Response: First, in order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the

government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that her conduct was unlawful.
Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 190 (1998). Second, the government should understand
the burden of proof in this case, and repetition of the burden of proof is not unnecessary. Third,
the length of the Code of Federal Regulations is relevant to mens rea. Lastly, reference to
“narcotics” is unduly prejudicial.
53

Third Element: Designation by OFAC
The third element the government must prove is that the foreign person with whom the
defendant had a transaction or dealing was designated by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets
Control in the Department of the Treasury pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 1904. In this regard, the
government has presented the Federal Register notices and other records stating that OFAC had
designated the businesses charged in counts one through five. You have also heard testimony
from ____________ of OFAC to this effect. You may give the records and testimony such
weight as you believe they deserve. However, while the government must prove that the foreign
persons were designated under the Kingpin Act, the government does not need to prove the
correctness of OFAC’s decision to designate the foreign persons. And the validity of OFAC’s
decision is not a matter of fact for you as a jury to decide.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a); United States v. Henry, No. 1:13-cr-91 (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 54 at
33 (instructing jury that correctness of Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’
determination that certain materials charged in indictment are defense articles on the United
States Munitions List is not a question fact jury to decide.); United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d
316, 331 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that “the fact of an organization’s designation … is an element
of [the crime], but the validity of the designation is not”) (emphasis in original); United States v.
Bozarov, 974 F.2d 1037, 1045–46 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that validity of the administrative
classification under the Export Administration Act was not an element of the offense); United
States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1222 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a criminal defendant could
not collaterally attack the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to place an item on the Commodity
Control List); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 447 (1944) (holding that the defendant could
not collaterally attack the validity of the Emergency Price Control Act price regulations that the
government accused him of violating); Order, United States v. Chichakli, No. 1:09-cr-01002-
WHP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2013), Dkt. No. 70 at 9 (finding that a defendant may not relitigate his
designation by OFAC in a criminal trial in which he was charged with violating IEEPA as a
result of that designation).
Defendant’s Objections: See Defendant’s Proposed Instruction No. 41.
54

Third Element: Designation by OFAC
The third element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the
foreign person with whom the defendant had a transaction or dealing was designated by the U.S.
Office of Foreign Assets Control in the Department of the Treasury pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §
1904. In this regard, the government has presented the Federal Register notices and other
records stating that OFAC had designated the businesses charged in counts one through five.
You have also heard testimony from ____________ of OFAC to this effect. You may give the
records and testimony such weight as you believe they deserve. However, w While the
government must prove that the foreign persons were designated under the Kingpin Act, the
government does not need to prove the correctness of OFAC’s decision to designate the foreign
persons. And the validity of OFAC’s decision is not a matter of fact for you as a jury to decide.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a); United States v. Henry, No. 1:13-cr-91 (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 54 at
33 (instructing jury that correctness of Directorate of Defense Trade Controls’
determination that certain materials charged in indictment are defense articles on the United
States Munitions List is not a question fact jury to decide.); United States v. Hammoud, 381 F.3d
316, 331 (4th Cir. 2004) (finding that “the fact of an organization’s designation … is an element
of [the crime], but the validity of the designation is not”) (emphasis in original); United States v.
Bozarov, 974 F.2d 1037, 1045–46 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that validity of the administrative
classification under the Export Administration Act was not an element of the offense); United
States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1222 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding that a criminal defendant could
not collaterally attack the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to place an item on the Commodity
Control List); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 447 (1944) (holding that the defendant could
not collaterally attack the validity of the Emergency Price Control Act price regulations that the
government accused him of violating); Order, United States v. Chichakli, No. 1:09-cr-01002-
WHP (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2013), Dkt. No. 70 at 9 (finding that a defendant may not relitigate his
designation by OFAC in a criminal trial in which he was charged with violating IEEPA as a
result of that designation).
Government Objection: The defendant proposes a change to the government’s proposed

instruction to strike an anodyne reminder to the jury of the types of testimony and evidence that
relate to this instruction. That reminder—coupled with an appropriate limiting instruction about
the jury’s duty to weigh evidence—helps to mitigate the risk of confusion in a lengthy and
complex set of instructions without prejudice to either side.
Defendant’s Response: In the government’s proposed instruction, the government seeks to argue
its theory of the case.
55

Defendant as Officer, Director, or Agent of Entity
Counts One through Five in the Indictment also charge Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez as an
officer, director, or agent of an entity who knowingly participated in the violation. You only
need to reach this question for each of the five counts if you have first determined that Jessica
Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is guilty of the underlying Kingpin Act violation, the elements of
which I just described.
If you find that the defendant is guilty of the underlying Kingpin Act violation for Counts One
through Five, you must determine whether she was an officer, director, or agent of an entity who
knowingly participated in the violation.
The term “entity” means a partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, organization,
network, group, or subgroup, or any form of business collaboration.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a); 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (definition of “entity”); United States v. Balagia,
No. 4:16-cr-176 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 438 at 25-27.
Defendant’s Objections: See Defendant’s Proposed Instruction No. 42.
56

Defendant as Officer, Director, or Agent of Entity
Counts One through Five in the Indictment also charge Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez was
an officer, director, or agent of an entity who knowingly participated in the violation. You only
need to reach this question for each of the five counts if you have first determined that the
government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez is
guilty of the underlying Kingpin Act allegationviolation, the elements of which I just described.
If you find that the defendant is guilty of the underlying Kingpin Act allegation violation for
Counts One through Five, you must determine whether she was an officer, director, or agent of
the an entity identified in that count who knowingly participated in the violation.
The term “entity” means a partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, organization,
network, group, or subgroup, or any form of business collaboration.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a); 21 U.S.C. § 1907 (definition of “entity”); United States v. Balagia,
No. 4:16-cr-176 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 438 at 25-27.
Government Objection: An overarching reasonable doubt instruction will be given and its
repetition here is unwarranted. Additionally, because this instruction instructs the jury to
consider whether the defendant is an officer, director, or agent only if they have already found
her guilty of the respective count, the substitution of the term “allegation” for “violation” is
unnecessary.
Defendant’s Response: The term “allegation” is appropriate, as “violation” would only be

applicable if Mr. Gonzalez were to be found guilty.
57

Definition of “Willfully”
You heard me use the term “willfully” in providing instructions as to the five counts charging
violations of the Kingpin Act.
An act is done willfully if it is committed with the knowledge that it was prohibited by law and
with the purpose of disobeying or disregarding the law.
The government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that her conduct was
unlawful. While the government must show that the defendant knew that her conduct was illegal,
it is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant was aware of the specific law,
rule, or regulation that the conduct may have violated. In other words, in this case, the
government is not required to prove that the defendant had read, was aware of, or had consulted
the regulations related to the Kingpin Act or the licensing requirements that those regulations
describe.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a); Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 190, 193, 196 (1998)
(definition of willfulness); United States v. Burden, 934 F.3d 675, 690-92 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[I]f
defendants knew exporting the charged items without a license was unlawful, they did not need
specific knowledge of the Munitions List. . . . [The government then] need not prove that a
defendant had read, was aware of, or had consulted the licensing provisions of the Arms Export
Control Act or the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or the Munitions List.”); United
States v. Henry, No. 1:13-cr-91 (E.D.N.Y.), Dkt. No. 54 (defendant need not have any evil
motive).
Defendant’s Objections: Defendant maintains that her interpretation of the willfulness standard
as set forth in her prior pleadings is correct and should apply in this case. Notwithstanding,
defendant objects to the wording of the government’s proposed instruction on willfulness, and
her objection is set forth in her proposed instruction.
58

Definition of “Knowingly”
The word “knowingly,” as it has been used from time to time in these instructions, means that
the act was done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of mistake or accident.
Source: 21 U.S.C. § 1906(a)(2); Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 193 (1998); United States
v. Zeese, 437 F. Supp. 3d 86, 95 (D.D.C. 2020) (BAH); United States v. Akhigbe, 642 F.3d 1078
(D.C. Cir. 2011).
Defendant’s Objection: The government’s proposed instruction is not appropriate in this case
because it fails to address the important question, “knowledge about what?” Here, the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the entities
identified in the Superseding Indictment were designated by OFAC. Given this, the
government’s burden in proving “knowingly” is appropriately addressed in Ms. Gonzalez’s
proposed instruction.
Government Response: The defendant’s objection misstates the definition of “knowingly.”

Nothing in the Kingpin Act itself, any authorities cited by the defendant, or the Court’s rulings
on extensive pretrial litigation, holds that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant knew the details of the specific Kingpin Act designations underlying her
indictment. “Knowingly” means that an act was done voluntarily and intentionally, not because
of mistake or accident. And, in any event, “knowingly” only appears in the Kingpin Act in
connection with a defendant who is an officer, director, or agent. It does not apply to the
subsection (a)(1) charge, as the defendant’s objection implies.
59

Willful Blindness 9
I want to explain something about proving a defendant’s knowledge.
No one can avoid responsibility for a crime by deliberately ignoring the obvious. A jury’s
finding beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intended to avoid knowledge or
enlightenment can permit a jury to find knowledge. Stated another way, a defendant’s
knowledge of a particular fact may be shown from a deliberate or intentional ignorance or
deliberate or intentional blindness to the existence of that fact.
Carelessness, or negligence, or foolishness on the part of a defendant is not the same as

knowledge, and is not enough to convict. This, of course, is all for you to decide.
Source: Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions: Sixth Circuit (2005 ed.), § 2.09 (Deliberate
Ignorance; United States v. Alston-Graves, 435 F.3d 331 (D.C. Cir. 2006); United States v.
Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 148 (3d Cir. 2005) (in Trading With the Enemy Act prosecution, another
sanctions statue enforced by OFAC, “The knowledge element of a crime such as the one charged
here may be satisfied upon a showing beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had actual
knowledge or ‘deliberately closed his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him
concerning the fact in question.’”); United States v. Soussi, 316 F.3d 1095, 1106-07 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 538 U.S. 971 (2003) (same for defendant in IEEPA prosecution).
Defendant’s Objection: It is not clear whether this Circuit recognizes the willful blindness
doctrine at all. In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., the Supreme Court stated that all of
the federal circuits, with the possible exception of the District of Columbia, endorse the willful
blindness doctrine. 563 U.S. 754, 769 n.9 (2011) (citing United States v. Alston-Graves, 435
F.3d 31, 339-341 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). In Alston-Graves, the trial judge gave an instruction
substantially like the one proposed by the government. 435 F.3d at 336. In finding error, the
Circuit questioned why the district court gave this instruction, noting that, while it was taken
from pattern jury instructions, it was “problematic.” Id. at 337. The court of appeals found that
“[i]t makes obvious sense to say that a person cannot act ‘knowingly’ if she does not know what
is going on. To add that such a person nevertheless acts ‘knowingly’ if she intentionally does not
know what is going on is something else again.” Id. The Court went on to note that some
circuits have stated that a willful blindness instruction is “‘rarely appropriate,’ or only proper in
‘rare circumstances’ or ‘rare cases.’ Other[] [circuits] are ‘wary of giving a willful blindness
instruction,’ or advise the instruction be given only ‘sparingly.’” Id. at 340-41 (citations
omitted). The defendant’s conviction was affirmed because the district court’s error was
harmless. Should the Court, nonetheless, given a willful blindness instruction, the defendant
objects to the wording of the proposed instruction.
9
Government Note: The government intends to move for this instruction if the evidence adduced
at trial warrants it.
60
Good Faith Defense
A defendant’s good faith is a complete defense to the charges in this case. The offenses
in the Indictment in this case are meant to impose criminal punishment only on those people who
knowingly and willfully violate them. Good faith on the part of a defendant is simply
inconsistent with a knowing and willful violation of these statutes. The burden of proving good
faith does not rest with Ms. Gonzalez, because she does not have the obligation to prove
anything in this case. It is the Government’s burden to prove to you, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that Ms. Gonzalez acted with the intent to knowingly and willfully commit the offenses charged
in the Indictment. If the evidence in this case leaves you with reasonable doubt as to whether
Ms. Gonzalez acted with that intent, you must find her not guilty. 10
Government Objection: A theory-of-defense instruction, such as this one, is only proper if there
is “sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find” for the defendant on this theory.
United States v. Glover, 153 F.3d 749, 754 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Mathews v. United States,
485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Even if sufficient evidence is elicited at trial, Proposed Jury Instruction
44, Definition of Willfully, along with the other jury instructions, adequately convey the substance
of this instruction, therefore this instruction is unnecessary. See United States v. Hurt, 727 F.3d
1347, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 2008); United States v. Gambler, 662 F.2d 834, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
Additionally, the government objects to the use “knowing and willful” throughout this instruction,
as opposed to “knowing or willful,” for the same reasons articulated in the Proposed Standard
Jury Instructions.
If the Court does instruct the jury on the good faith defense, the government proposes that the
following sentences be added for completeness:
While the term “good faith” has no precise definition, it encompasses,

among other things, a belief or opinion honestly held, an absence of malice
or ill will, and an intention to avoid taking unfair advantage of another. A
defendant does not act in “good faith” if, even though she honestly holds a
certain opinion or belief, that defendant also knowingly makes false or
fraudulent statements, representations or promises to others.
These proposed additions are taken directly from the authority on which the defendant’s proposed
instruction relies, and the government refers the Court to that authority for a more complete
exposition of an appropriate good faith instruction.
Defendant’s Response: Defendant maintains that her proposed instruction is appropriate, and
she further submits that the government’s proposed additional language will mislead the jury,
lower the standard of proof, shift the burden of proof to Ms. Gonzalez and, therefore, unfairly
10
Adapted from O’Malley, Grenig & Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, “The Good Faith
Defense – Explained,” § 19.06, pp. 855-56 (5th ed. 2000).
61
prejudice the defendant.
62
Knowingly & Willfully
The terms “willfully” and “knowingly” are distinct and essential elements under the law, each of
which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The government must prove that Ms. Gonzalez acted knowingly. This means the
government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Gonzalez knew that the entities
identified in the indictment were designated or blocked by OFAC. 11 In deciding whether the
defendant acted “knowingly,” you may consider evidence about what, if anything, Ms. Gonzalez
said, what was said to her and what was not said to her regarding the entities identified in the
indictment, what Ms. Gonzalez and government agents did and failed to do, how the defendant
acted, and all other facts and circumstances shown by the evidence that may prove what was in
the Ms. Gonzalez’s mind at the relevant time. 12 The word “knowingly” also means that the act
was done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of ignorance, mistake or accident.
The government must also prove that Ms. Gonzalez acted willfully. While the
government is not required to demonstrate that Ms. Gonzalez actually received and read the
applicable statutes and regulations, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
11
Adopted from Third Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Chapter 5.02 – Knowingly – (2018). The
following was set forth in the Comment to this pattern instruction.
***
In United States v. Maury, 695 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2012), the Third Circuit upheld the trial
court’s instruction on knowingly, citing this instruction. The court noted that in “its
preliminary instructions to the jury, the Court was clear that ‘a person acts “knowingly” if
that person acts voluntarily and intentionally and not because of mistake or accident or
other innocent reason.’ . . . In instructing the jury at the close of the trial, the District Court
expounded on its earlier definition, providing separate mens rea charges for each offense
in the indictment, and defining ‘knowing’ conduct in the context of each charge.” Id. at
261. After providing examples of the specific mental state instructions given by the trial
court in its final instructions, the Third Circuit stated: “We note at the outset that these
proffered instructions are consistent with our own case law and our recommended jury
instructions concerning ‘knowing’ conduct. See W. Indies, 127 9 F.3d at 310 (noting, in
the context of the CWA, that ‘[a]n act is done knowingly if done voluntarily and
intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason.’); see also
United States v. Flores, 454 F.3d 149, 160–61 (3d Cir. 2006) (approving similar ‘knowing’
instruction); Third Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 5.02.” 695 F.3d at 262.
In some cases the judge may want to be specific about the conduct, facts, or circumstances
knowledge of which is required for the offense charged. In such a case, the judge should
include the following after the first paragraph: “Specifically, this means that in this case
the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (name) was conscious and
aware of (state the nature of conduct or facts and circumstances knowledge of which is
required for the offense charged).”
12
Id.
63
Ms. Gonzalez knew and understood that it was illegal to engage in transactions or dealings with
a designated entity. 13 It is not enough for the government to establish that Ms. Gonzalez
engaged in a dealing or transaction with a designated entity, even if she knew that a particular
entity was designated by OFAC. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Ms. Gonzalez: (1) knew that the entities identified in the indictment were designated by OFAC;
(2) she understood that it was illegal for her to engage in dealings or transactions with those
designated entities; and (3) with the knowledge that it was illegal to engage in dealings or
transactions with designated entities, Ms. Gonzalez still engaged in dealings or transactions with
the entities identified in the Indictment. 14
Government Objection: As explained in the Government Response to Defendant Objections to the

Proposed Standard Jury Instructions, the defendant is charged under two provisions of the
Kingpin Act – one provision, subsection (a)(1), has a mens rea of willfully, and the other provision,
subsection (a)(2), has a mens rea of knowingly. Neither provision requires the government to
prove that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully, which is what this instruction suggests.
The defendant is charged with five violations of 21 U.S.C. 1906(a)(1), which reads: “Whoever
willfully violates the provisions of this chapter, or any license rule, or regulation issued pursuant
to this chapter, or willfully neglects or refuses to comply with any order of the President issued
under this chapter shall be – (A) imprisoned for not more than 10 years, (B) fined in the amounted
provided in title 18 … or both.” If the jury finds the defendant guilty of violating 21 U.S.C.
1906(a)(1), the jury will then determine whether the defendant also violated 21 U.S.C.
1906(a)(2)—“Any officer, director, or agent of any entity who knowingly participates in a
violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be imprisoned for not more than 30 years, fined
not more than $5,000,000, or both.”
The defendant’s proposed instruction also misstates the definition of knowingly. “Knowingly,” as
it is used in 21 U.S.C. 1906(a)(2)—which is the only place in the Kingpin Act where the term
appears--does not mean that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms.
Gonzalez knew that the entities identified in the indictment were designated or blocked by OFAC.
“Knowingly” means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of mistake
or accident.
Proposed Jury Instruction 44, Definition of “Willfully,” and Proposed Jury Instruction 45,
Definition of “Knowingly” correctly instruct the jury on the law.
13
United States v. Burden, 934 F.3d 675, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“The willfulness instruction
arguably fell short in not specifying that the unlawful ‘conduct’ the jury must find the defendants to
have willfully done was the actus reus that violated the AECA: unlawfully exporting the magazines and
mount without a license.”); see also United States v. Zeese, 437 F. Supp. 3d 86, 96 (D.D.C. 2020)
(“arguments about the defendants lacking knowledge that their conduct was unlawful are relevant to the
issue of willfulness”).
14
Id.
64
Defendant’s Response: In order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the government must
prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that her conduct was unlawful. Bryan v. United
States, 524 U.S. 184, 190 (1998). It is, therefore, simply wrong for the government to argue that
it is not required to prove that that the defendant knew that it was illegal for her to engage in
dealings or transactions with the entities identified in the Superseding Indictment.
65

Law of Mexico
In evaluating the defendant’s state of mind you may consider that it is not a violation of
the laws of Mexico for a U.S. person to engage in dealings or transactions with entities
designated by OFAC. 15
Government Objection: The defendant provides no support or legal authority for the proposition
that the laws of Mexico have any relevance to this matter, and to give an instruction suggesting
that whether or not the defendant violated U.S. law depends in any part on whether or not
another country has the same law would only confuse the issues before the jury. Moreover, even
if the evidence at trial could show conclusively that the defendant knew with certainty that
Mexico did not criminalize U.S. OFAC violations, that would not logically negate or even
undercut the defendant’s state of mind: U.S. persons are certainly capable of understanding
both that (1) conduct could be lawful in Mexico and also (2) unlawful in the United States.
Knowledge of one implies nothing about knowledge of the other.
Defendant’s Response: The requisite mens rea under the Kingpin Act is willfulness. In other
words, the government must prove that Ms. Gonzalez engaged in illegal conduct, knew such
conduct was prohibited by law, and then intentionally violated the law. Ms. Gonzalez is a
resident of Mexico. Relevant Mexican law is appropriately considered as a circumstance
bearing on her state of mind.
To the extent required, this serves as notice under Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
15
Procedure.
66

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CRIMINAL NO. 20-CR-040 (BAH)
JESSICA OSEGUERA GONZALEZ,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENT’S TRIAL EXHIBIT LIST
Government: Brett Reynolds, Kate Naseef, and Kaitlin Sahni
Defendant: Jessica Oseguera Gonzalez
Current as of: February 22, 2021
Exhibit Description of Exhibit

Number
100-1 USDT Press Release (2015.04.08)

100-2 USDT April 2015 Chart
100-3 Federal Register 20293-20294
100-4 Blocking Notice Defendant
100-5 Blocking Notice Email w/Attachments (2015.09.17)
100-6 Blocking Notice Email Undeliverable (2015.09.17)
100-7 Blocking Notice
100-8 Blocking Notice (2017.01.09)
100-10 USDT September 2015 Chart
100-13 USDT September 2017 Chart
100-18 USDT October 2016 Chart
100-20 OFAC License History Check (2020.11.05)
200-1 Photo Las Flores Cabanas Website
1

Number
200-2 Photo Las Flores Cabanas
300-1 Translation Certifications (1 CD)
400-1 Defendant Email to Bluehost

400-2 JP-ADV Bluehost Dashboard
400-3 JaliUsa Bluhost Dashboard
400-4 JP-ADV Bluehost Spreadsheet
400-5 Bluehost Email to Defendant
500-1 Birth Certificate

500-2 Passport Application
500-3 Internet Archive Authentication 00048046-00048047
500-4 Internet Archive News Article CNN Expansion (2015.09.17)
500-4A Internet Archive News Article CNN Expansion (2015.09.17) Translation
500-5 News Article El Occidental (2015.09.18)
500-5A News Article El Occidental (2015.09.18) Translation
500-6 News Article El Universal (2015.09.18)
500-6A News Article El Universal (2015.09.18) Translation
500-7 News Article (2015.09.18) Excelsior
500-7A News Article Excelsior (2015.09.18) Translation
500-8 News Article La Jornada (2015.09.18)
500-8A News Article La Jornada (2015.09.18) Translation
500-9 News Article Mural (2015.09.18)
500-9A News Article Mural (2015.09.18) Translation
500-10 News Article Reforma (2015.09.18)
500-10A News Article Reforma (2015.09.18) Translation
500-11 News Article MVS
500-11A News Article MVS Translation
500-12 Corporate Registration J&P Advertising
500-12A Corporate Registration J&P Advertising Translation
500-13 Corporate Registration JJGON
500-13A Corporate Registration JJGON Translation
500-14 Trademark J&P Advertising
500-14A Trademark J&P Advertising Translation
500-18 Trademark Las Flores Cabanas
500-18A Trademark Las Flores Cabanas Translation
2

Number
500-21 Trademark Mizu Sushi Lounge

500-21A Trademark Mizu Sushi Lounge Translation
500-24 Trademark Tequila Onze Black
500-24A Trademark Tequila Onze Black Translation
500-27 Internet Archive Mizu Sushi Lounge Website
500-28 News Article Mural (2015.09.25)
500-28A News Article Mural (2015.09.25) Translation
500-29 News Article Gente Bien (2013.10.25)
500-29A News Article Gente Bien (2013.10.25) Translation
500-30 News Article Informador (2015.06.26)
500-30A News Article Informador (2015.06.26) Translation
500-31 News Article Chic Magazine (2013.11.28)
500-31A News Article Chic Magazine (2013.11.25) Translation
500-32 Plaza Fusion Galerias Facebook Page
500-33 Plaza Fusion Galerias Facebook Page
500-34 Plaza Fusion Galerias Album Page
500-34A Plaza Fusion Galerias Album Page Translation
500-35 Plaza Fusion Galerias Facebook Photo
500-36 Plaza Fusion Galerias Facebook Photo
500-37 News Article Reforma (2017.0914)
500-37A News Article Reforma (2017.09.14) Translation
500-38 News Article El Diario NTR
500-38A News Article El Diario NTR Translation
500-39 News Article El Economista
500-39A News Article El Economista Translation
500-40 News Article Excelsior (2017.09.14)
500-40A News Article Excelsior (2017.09.14) Translation
500-41 Internet Archive Zeta Homepage
500-41A Internet Archive Zeta Homepage Translation
500-42 News Article Noroeste
500-42A News Article Noroeste Translation
500-43 Internet Archive El Universal Homepage (2017.09.14)
500-43A Internet Archive El Universal Homepage (2017.09.14) Translation
500-44 Internet Archie News Article El Universal (2017.09.14)
500-44A Internet Archive News Article El Universal (2017.09.14) Translation
500-45 Internet Archive News Article Proceso Article (2017.09.15)
500-45A Internet Archive News Article El Universal (2017.09.14) Translation
500-46 Internet Archive Proceso Homepage (2017.09.15)
500-46A Internet Archive Proceso Homepage (2017.09.15) Translation
3

Number
500-47 Internet Archive Milenio Homepage (2017.09.12)

500-47A Internet Archive Milenio Homepage (2017.09.12) Translation
500-48 Internet Archive News Article Milenio (2017.09.12)
500-48A Internet Archive News Article Milenio (2017.09.12) Translation
500-49 Trademark Kenzo Sushi
500-49A Trademark Kenzo Sushi Translation
500-50 Trademark Kenzo Sushi
500-50A Trademark Kenzo Sushi Translation
500-51 Corporate Registration Operadora Los Famosos
500-51A Corporate Registration Operadora Los Famosos Translation
500-52 Facebook Authentication
00035194
500-53 Kenzo Sushi Facebook Subscriber Information
500-54 Kenzo Sushi Facebook Subscriber Information
500-55 Kenzo Facebook Photo & Caption (2015.10.28)
500-55A Kenzo Facebook Photo & Caption (2015.10.28) Translation
500-56 Kenzo Facebook Photo & Caption (2015.12.08)
500-56A Kenzo Facebook Photo & Caption (2015.12.08) Translation
500-57 Kenzo Facebook Photo (2017.08.07)
500-58 Kenzo Photo & Caption (2017.10.11)
500-58A Kenzo Photo & Caption (2017.10.11) Translation
00047995
500-60 Kenzo Instagram Subscriber Information
500-61 Kenzo Instagram About Me
500-62 Kenzo Instagram Post
500-62A Kenzo Instagram Post Translation
500-63 Kenzo Instagram Post
500-63A Kenzo Instagram Post Translation
500-64 Chica_J Hotmail Email Microsoft Authentication 00047996-
00047997
500-65 Chica_j Hotmail Email 4AF336B0-EBA6-429D-9921-B0AF03780C99
500-66 Chica_j Hotmail Email 4D73119E-62C0-4CB7-9279-5505A8A6703C
500-66A Chica_j Hotmail Email 4D73119E-62C0-4CB7-9279-5505A8A6703C Translation
500-67 Chica_j Hotmail Email 4846F2A9-8A27-4964-8B7C-87DE49BC10E5
500-67A Chica_j Hotmail Email 4846F2A9-8A27-4964-8B7C-87DE49BC10E5 Translation
500-68 Daily Sales Disc (1 CD)
500-68.1 Daily Sales Disc List of Folders
500-69 Daily Sales Report (2015.12.18)
061EC1E7-30BE-4562-8C21-92622D474541
500-69A Daily Sales Report (2015.12.18)
061EC1E7-30BE-4562-8C21-92622D474541 Translation
500-70 Daily Sales Report (2018.02.26)
8DCF722C-6654-475E-AF98-AD19F48E312A
500-70A Daily Sales Report (2018.02.26)
8DCF722C-6654-475E-AF98-AD19F48E312A Translation
500-71 Pay Stubs Disc (1 CD)
4

Number
500-71.1 Pay Stubs Disc List of folders

500-72 Pay Stub (2016.04.15)
BCFFDD12-33B1-4D71-B6ED-506BAC458547
500-72A Pay Stub (2016.04.15)
BCFFDD12-33B1-4D71-B6ED-506BAC458547 Translation
500-73 Chica_j Hotmail Email
C812D260-0FF4-4CC9-BAB2-820C5F25CFEA
500-73A Chica_j Hotmail Email
C812D260-0FF4-4CC9-BAB2-820C5F25CFEA Translation
3DD508A6-8381-4314-984F-FECCE5336D3E
3DD508A6-8381-4314-984F-FECCE5336D3E Translation
D0B875B8-A041-49E5-B7BD-2F0E1570946B
D0B875B8-A041-49E5-B7BD-2F0E1570946B Translation
E737F418-61C4-4403-BEF9-EB130CA50A33
E737F418-61C4-4403-BEF9-EB130CA50A33 Translation
C2C464FF-B371-49EB-8436-22955F8BAE91
C2C464FF-B371-49EB-8436-22955F8BAE91 Translation
68535FA4-6CB3-4550-998C-60B5EDB5FFA4
68535FA4-6CB3-4550-998C-60B5EDB5FFA4 Translation
500-79 Kenzosushigdl Gmail Authentication 00045061
500-80 Kenzosushigdl Gmail Email
1DEED534-4EF1-4118-8C0D-674B917A224B
500-80A Kenzosushigdl Gmail Email
1DEED534-4EF1-4118-8C0D-674B917A224B Translation
837CAB7A-16D8-428A-800C-7224E1D355B0
837CAB7A-16D8-428A-800C-7224E1D355B0 Translation
35F3E975-84EB-44A0-9DEA-84CBFCC39E12,
2F4DB63F-4FB6-4812-9F2D-D592D0A0ED51, 400D808A-091C-4D72-88B2-
BBAB2365F8A0, and 59C8FE1C-59DF-46E0-9233-BF1E1ADD3955
35F3E975-84EB-44A0-9DEA-84CBFCC39E12,
2F4DB63F-4FB6-4812-9F2D-D592D0A0ED51, 400D808A-091C-4D72-88B2-
BBAB2365F8A0, and 59C8FE1C-59DF-46E0-9233-BF1E1ADD3955 Translation
5

Number
9191022B-D8FA-487D-AF87-BD4394CDE4F9
9191022B-D8FA-487D-AF87-BD4394CDE4F9 Translation
2AC52C97-28FF-4B27-89A5-135DEA0A5041
2AC52C97-28FF-4B27-89A5-135DEA0A5041 Translation
500-85 Internet Archive Las Flores Cabanas Website
500-85A Internet Archive Las Flores Cabanas Website Translation
500-86 Internet Archive Las Flores Cabanas Website
500-86A Internet Archive Las Flores Cabanas Website Translation
00035195
00035193
500-89 Cabanas La Loma Facebook Excerpt
500-91A Cabanas La Loma Facebook Excerpt Translation
500-92 Cabanas La Loma Excerpt & Photos
500-93A Cabanas La Loma Facebook Excerpt Translation
500-94 Cabanas La Loma Instagram Excerpt
500-94A Cabanas La Loma Instagram Excerpt Translation
500-95 Driver’s License
600-1 Photo from Defendant’s Phone

700-1 Facebook Search Warrant Results (CD for identification) Cabanas La Loma En
Renta
700-2 Facebook Search Warrant Results
(CD for identification) kenzosushigdl, cabanaslaloma, cabanaslalomatapalpa,
and mizusushilounge
700-3 Microsoft Search Warrant Results (CD for identification)-- chica_j@hotmail.com
700-4 Gmail Search Warrant Results (CD for identification)-- kenzosushigdl@gmail.com
6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. )
CRIMINAL NO.: 1:20-CR-040
)
JESSICA JOHANNA OSEGUERA )
GONZALEZ, )
also known as “Jessica Johanna )
Castillo” and “La Negra,” )
)
Defendant. )
PROPOSED VERDICT FORM
We the jury unanimously find as follows
1. On Count One of the Superseding Indictment, charging a violation of the Kingpin Act
with respect to J&P Advertising, S.A. de C.V., we, the jury, unanimously find the
defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
NOT GUILTY GUILTY
Special Interrogatory
If you found the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, guilty as to Count One
of the Superseding Indictment, you must answer the following.
Do you find that the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, was an officer,
director or agent of J&P Advertising, S.A. de C.V.?
YES NO
2. On Count Two of the Superseding Indictment, charging a violation of the Kingpin Act
with respect to JJGON S.P.R de R.L. de C.V., we, the jury, unanimously find the
defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
NOT GUILTY GUILTY
If you found the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, guilty as to Count Two
director or agent of JJGON S.P.R de R.L. de C.V.?
YES NO
3. On Count Three of the Superseding Indictment, charging a violation of the Kingpin Act
with respect to Las Flores Cabanas, we, the jury, unanimously find the defendant, Jessica
Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
NOT GUILTY GUILTY
If you found the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, guilty as to Count Three
2
director or agent of Las Flores Cabanas?
YES NO
4. On Count Four of the Superseding Indictment, charging a violation of the Kingpin Act
with respect to Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A. de C.V. (also
known as Kenzo Sushi and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A.P.I. de C.V.), we, the jury,
unanimously find the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
NOT GUILTY GUILTY
If you found the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, guilty as to Count Four
director or agent of Mizu Sushi Lounge and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A. de C.V. (also
known as Kenzo Sushi and Operadora Los Famosos, S.A.P.I. de C.V.)?
YES NO
3
5. On Count Five of the Superseding Indictment, charging a violation of the Kingpin Act
with respect to Onze Black (also known as Tequila Onze Black), we, the jury,
unanimously find the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez
NOT GUILTY GUILTY
If you found the defendant, Jessica Johanna Oseguera Gonzalez, guilty as to Count Five
director or agent of Onze Black (also known as Tequila Onze Black)?
YES NO

Jesica Oseguera Mencho Daughter Plea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Jesica Oseguera Mencho Daughter Plea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 1:20-cr-00040-BAH Document 188 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.: 20-040 (BAH)

JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT

in Criminal Cases. See Dkt. No. 16 (“Standing Order”).

I. Written Statements Regarding Plea Communications

sentencing exposure is attached as Exhibit 2 hereto.

II. Joint Statement of the Case

statement of the case to be read to prospective jurors:

that the following be read to prospective jurors:

III. Proposed Voir Dire Questions

IV. Proposed Jury Instructions

in the event of disagreement.

The government anticipates moving to qualify the following witnesses as experts:

of Foreign Asset Control (“OFAC”) as Enforcement Officers. OFAC publishes a

list of individuals and companies owned, controlled, or materially supported by

designated countries or individuals such as significant foreign narcotics traffickers.

individual or entity on the list. As Enforcement Officers, Mr. Bell, or alternatively

the Kingpin Act, and the licensing process.

Defendant’s Objection: As to Alonzo Bell or Nathalie Smith, Ms. Gonzalez submits

produced to Ms. Gonzalez.

Department of Justice. Ms. O’Brien prepared English translations of Spanish-

English translation is a true and accurate translation of the Spanish document.

proffered area of expertise.

Vincent Risalvato as an expert witness.

Officer of Global Digital Forensics. Mr. Caruso is a recognized industry leader in

years of active in-the-field experience in numerous technology areas. Mr. Caruso

has testified as an expert in state and federal courts on numerous occasions.

• Vincent Risalvato is the Southeast Director of Global Digital Forensics. Mr.

as an expert in state and federal courts on numerous occasions.

evidence submitted by the government regarding computer evidence, including

evidence obtained from any social media or email accounts.

VI. Motions in Limine

• Motion to Preclude Testimony or Argument Related to Vindictive Prosecution

The defendant anticipates filing the following motions in limine:

1. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Admit Statements of Party Opponent and Incorporated

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

2. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence and Testimony Offering Conclusions

or Speculation Regarding Defendant’s Beliefs, Understandings, Motivations, or

Knowledge and Incorporated Memorandum Of Points And Authorities

3. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Irrelevant and Prejudicial Argument, Evidence,

and Testimony at Trial and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities

4. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Allow Defendant to Present Argument or Elicit

404(B) Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities

5. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Social Media Evidence Produced Without

Corresponding Metadata and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities

6. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Exclude Argument, Testimony, or Evidence Relating to

Defendant’s Tax Returns and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities

7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine for an Order Directing the Government to Produce

8. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Compel the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of

Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Procedures in Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Incorporated Memorandum of Points

and Incorporated Memorandum of Points and Authorities

VII. Prior Convictions

VIII. Government’s Exhibit List

the stipulation in advance of trial:

• Stipulation as to the Defendant’s Status as a “United States Person”

has either rejected them or not yet made a decision:

• Stipulation as to the Authenticity of Emails, Social Media, and Internet Archive

• Stipulation for the Use of Translations for Spanish-Language Documentary

X. Proposed Verdict Form

A proposed verdict form is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of February, 2021.

McCool Law PLLC Arthur Wyatt, Chief

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 20-CR-040 (BAH)