__________________ DISTRICT OF TEXAS
										
__________________  DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	                 §
§
v.	                                                                 §	__________________
     §	
_______________________________               §
	
DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR QUESTIONS
TO BE SUBMITTED TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS

TO THE HONORABLE ///, JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE /// NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, /// DIVISION:

	COMES NOW ///,  Defendant in the above styled and numbered cause and pursuant to Rule 24, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, respectfully requests the Court to include in its interrogation of the prospective jurors, the following matters:
BACKGROUND OF INDIVIDUAL JURORS
	The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to propound to each individual member of the jury panel the following questions designed to inform the Defendant, and his counsel, of the background of each individual juror so that Defendant's counsel may provide effective assistance of counsel in selecting the jury and exercising his peremptory challenges:
	1.	What is your occupation?
	2.	Who is your employer?
	3.	How long have you been so employed?
	4.	What are your job responsibilities?
	5.	How many employees, if any, do you supervise in your occupation?
	6.	Do you plan on changing jobs in the near future?
	7.	If so, what type of employment would you be interested in?
	8.	What was your previous occupation or who was your previous employer?
	9.	When and where was that?
	10.	What is your marital status?
	11.	What is your spouse's occupation?
	12.	Who is your spouse's employer?
	13.	How long has your spouse been so employed?
	14.	How was your spouse previously employed and who was your spouse's previous employer?

	15.	How old are you?

	16.	Do you have children and if so, how many and what are their ages and sex?

	17.	What do your children do for a living?
	
	18.	What is the educational background of you and your spouse?

	19.	If any school beyond high school, what did you study and where did you study?

	20.	What is your religious preference?

	21.	How often do you attend religious services?

	22.	Do you belong to any clubs, groups, or organizations?

	23.	If you held any office, which one?

	24.	What magazines and newspapers do you read?

	25.	What television newscasts do you usually watch?

	26.	What do you like to do in your spare time?

	27.	Do you know anyone on this jury panel?

	28.	How long have you resided in the area?

	29.	Do you have any pressing personal problems which would affect your ability to be attentive if you were selected as a member in this case? If so, would you please approach the bench and inform he Court and counsel of the nature of that problem.

	30.	Can you think of any reason why you would hesitate to serve as a juror in this case? If so, would you please approach the bench and inform the Court and counsel of that reason.

	31.	Do any of you have any sight, hearing, or other physical problems which could interfere with your service as a juror in this case?

III.

ASSOCIATION OR ACQUAINTANCE WITH
CERTAIN PERSONS, PLACES OR AGENCIES

	The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to question the prospective jurors to determine whether or not any member of the panel is associated with or acquainted with certain persons, places or agencies listed below, which may create a bias or prejudice in this case:
	1.	The presiding Judge.
	2.	Each Defendant in the case.
	3.	Each defense attorney in the case or a lawyer or member of  the attorney's firm.
	4.	The Assistant United States Attorney in this case.
	5.		Any person who is employed by or Ore associated with the United States Attorney's Office?

	6.		Does any member of the panel have a relative or close personal friend who is now or has ever been employed by or associated with the United States Attorney's Office?

	7.	Is there any member of the panel who is now employed by or associated with any office or agency of the United States Government?

	8.	Is there any member of the panel who has a relative or a close personal friend who is now or who has ever been employed by or associated with any office or agency of the United States Government?

	9.	Is there any member of the panel who now has any business or contractual relationship with any office or agency of the United States Government or who has ever had any business or contractual relationship with any office or agency of the United States Government?

	10.	Is there any member of the panel who is now employed by or associated with or who has ever been employed by or associated with any law enforcement agency such as the Police Department, Sheriff's Department, the FBI, the United States Marshall's Office, or the Military Police?

	11.	Is there any member of the panel who has a relative or a close personal friend who is now employed by or associated with in any capacity or who has ever been employed by or associated with any law enforcement agency such as I have already mentioned?

	12.	Are you or a close friend or relative a member of or associated with an auxiliary police or law enforcement organization, victim's right or citizen's crime prevention organization?
	13.	Is there any member of the panel who is acquainted with any of the following persons? (At this point, Defendants respectfully move the Court to instruct the attorneys representing the Government to furnish the Court with a list of names of the persons who the Government intends to call as witnesses during the course of the trial so that the Court may submit those names to the prospective jurors in order to determine whether or not anyone is acquainted with those witnesses).

	The Defendant requests that the jurors be asked to identify themselves by standing or raising their hand if they have an affirmative response to any of the above questions. Should any member of the panel respond affirmatively the Defendant respectfully moves the Court to permit defense counsel to interrogate each of such jurors outside the presence and hearing of the other members of the panel to determine the nature of the juror's association or the acquaintance with the designated person, place or agency to determine whether or not such association or acquaintance might create a bias or prejudice against the Defendants in this case. Should the Court deny this request, then in the alternative, but without waiving the foregoing request, Defendant respectfully moves the Court to so interrogate the prospective jurors who respond affirmatively to any of the above questions.
IV.
EXPERIENCES WHICH MAY
CREATE BIAS OR PREJUDICE

	The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to ask the following questions to the jury panel as a whole to determine whether or not any member of the panel has had an experience which may create bias or prejudice on the part of that juror against the Defendant or which may influence said juror's verdict in the case:
	1.	Is there anyone on the panel who has served on a jury before? If so, then:
		a.	Was it a federal or state jury?
		b.	Was it a civil case or a criminal case?
		c.	If it was a civil case, what was the nature of the case?
		d.	When did you serve on a civil jury?
		e.	Where did you serve on a civil jury?
		f.	Did the jury arrive at a verdict?
		g.	If it was a criminal case, what was the nature of the case?
		h.	When did you serve on criminal jury?
		I.	Where did you serve on a criminal jury?
		j.	Did the jury reach a verdict?
		k.	Was the experience of serving on the jury a difficult one?
		1.	Did the experience of serving on a jury cause you to have any concerns about serving again?

		m.	Did the experience make you feel more qualified to serve on a jury again?

	2.		Is there anyone on the panel who has ever before served as a member of a grand jury, federal or state? If so, then:
		a.	Was it a federal or state grand jury?
		b.	When did you serve?
		c.	Where did you serve?

	3.		Is there any member of the panel who has ever testified as a witness in any civil or criminal case? If so:
		a.	What was the nature of the case?
		b.	When did you testify?
		c.	If it was a criminal case, did you testify as witness for the prosecution or for the defense?

	4.		Has any member of the panel or your spouse ever attended law school or ever formally studied law? If so, then:
		a.	Where did you or your spouse study law?
		b.	When did you or your spouse study law?
		c.	Did you or your spouse obtain a degree in law?

	5.		Has any member of the panel or a close friend and relative of any member been the complaining witness or victim in a criminal case?

	6.		Have you or a close friend or relative of yours ever participated or worked in a drug treatment or rehabilitation program?

	The Defendant requests that the jurors be asked to identify themselves by standing or raising their hand if they have an affirmative response to any of the above questions.
	Should any member of the panel respond affirmatively the Defendant respectfully moves the Court to permit defense counsel to interrogate each of such jurors outside the presence and hearing of the other members of the panel to determine the nature of the juror's association or the acquaintance with the designated person, place or agency to determine whether or not such association or acquaintance might create a bias or prejudice against the Defendants in this case.  Should the Court deny this request, then in the alternative, but without waiving the foregoing request, Defendant respectfully moves the Court to so interrogate the prospective jurors who respond affirmatively to any of the above questions.  	V.
ATTITUDES TOWARD GENERAL PRINCIPLES
OF LAW IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES

	Defendant respectfully moves the Court to ask the following questions in the following manner to the panel as a whole to determine each juror's attitude toward the fundamental principles of law which are applicable to this case:
	1.	In all criminal cases, the burden of proof is on the Government and that burden never shifts during the entire course of the trial.  Is there any member of the panel who has any philosophical quarrel or disagreement with that aspect of the law?  That is, is there any member of the panel who believes that a Defendant in a criminal case should be required, in any way, to establish his innocence?

	2.	In all criminal cases, the Government must prove the Defendant's guilt, if any, beyond a reasonable doubt.  This, of course, is a very heavy burden which is placed on the Government.  Is there any member of the panel who has any philosophical quarrel or disagreement with this aspect of the law that places upon the Government the very heavy burden of proof in all criminal cases?

	3.	The Defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent unless the Government establishes, by competent and legally admissible evidence, his or her guilt, if any, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I ask the members of the jury panel at this time to carefully observe the citizens who stand accused before you today and tell me now whether there is anything about any of them which would in any way persuade you to deny them the presumption of innocence to which they are entitled?

	4.	Our law provides that a Defendant in a criminal case may exercise his right to remain silent and that if he chooses not to testify, that fact may not be considered or used against him in any manner in deciding his guilt or innocence.  Is there any member of the panel who would expect a Defendant to testify in a criminal case and who would hold it against him in such a case if he did not testify?
	5.	A Defendant in a criminal case is, of course, permitted to testify if he so chooses and should he testify, his testimony is to be judged by the same standards that would be used to judge the testimony of any other witness.  Is there any member of the panel who if selected as a juror would not judge a Defendant's testimony, in the event he did decide to testify, by the same standards used to judge the testimony or any other witness? Is there any member of the panel who would automatically disregard or give less credibility to the testimony of a Defendant simply because he is the accused person?

	6.	During the course of the trial, it is possible that there will be objections by the attorneys from both sides.  It is the duty and obligation of an attorney to make an objection when that attorney believes that evidence which is offered is inadmissible or is legally incompetent evidence.  This is a necessary part of the judicial process.  When such an objection is made, it then becomes the duty of the Court to rule on such objection.  In ruling on objections, the Court does not intend to indicate any preference for one side or the other of the case but is simply making a ruling on the matters of law presented to the Court.  Is there any member of the panel who would feel any degree of hostility towards one party or one side of the case simply because the attorney for that side of the case deemed it appropriate to make objections during the course of the trial?

	7.	During the course of the trial, the Court may issue instructions to the jury concerning various aspects of the law.  It is, of course, your duty as a juror, if selected, to carefully follow the instructions of law that are given to you by the Court.  Your province as a member of the jury will be to decide issues of fact that are presented by the evidence but the law you must receive from the Court and be bound thereby.  At the end of the case, you will be given a charge by the Court which will explain to you the law that is applicable to this case.  Also, during the course of the trial, it may be that the Court will issue certain instructions to the jury concerning the law applicable to the case.  Is there any member of the jury who feels that he could not follow the instructions of law that will be given to you by the Court during the course of the trial?

	8.	Does each member of the panel understand that the indictment accusing the Defendant of an offense is not evidence in the case?

	9.	Does each member of the panel understand that the indictment is to be wholly disregarded and that the Defendant is to be presumed innocent as he sits here in Court until and unless his guilt is proven by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt?
	10.	Before a citizen may be found guilty of a criminal charge in a trial before a jury, the prosecution must convince all of the jurors of the Defendant's guilt, if he is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is, a jury's verdict must be unanimous.  A majority vote of the jury does not make the decision.  Each juror must make his or her own decision based on the evidence.  A juror does not have an obligation to go along with majority, but has a duty to make his or her own decision and stand by that decision.  This does not mean that a juror should not consider the thoughts and ideas of his or her fellow jurors, but that in the end it is each juror's individual decision as to how to vote.  In that regard if you were selected to sit on this jury and you came to the conclusion at the end of the trial that the prosecution had not proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and you found that the majority of your fellow jurors believe that the Defendant was guilty, would you change your verdict because you were in the minority or would you stand by your own decision?

	11.	In making these deliberations, a jury may only consider evidence that you have seen or heard in the Courtroom.  You may not consider any outside matter or speculate as to the facts that are not before you.  The comments of the Court and the comments and arguments of the lawyers do not amount to evidence that is proof of guilt or of innocence.  What the Court or the lawyers say may only be considered as a guide to the jury in evaluating the evidence.

VI.

ATTITUDE TOWARD LAW
APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE

	The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to give the following instructions and to ask the following questions in the following manner to the panel of jurors as a whole to familiarize the jurors with certain principles of law that apply to this case and to determine their attitude towards such principles:
	1.		In this case the Government has alleged that the Defendants conspired to distribute or possess with intent to distribute a drug called amphetamine and did distribute and did possess with intent to distribute amphetamine.  Amphetamine is a controlled substance, that is, it is a drug, the use of which is regulated by the Government.  Is there anyone on the jury panel who knows anything about or has some familiarity with this particular drug? If so, how did you acquire this information?

	2.	In the last few years there has been a great deal of media attention and concern by the community over the effects of drugs on people and on society as a whole.  While the effects of drugs on people and our community is a very important concern, it is not an issue in this case.  The issue in this case is whether or not the Government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allegations in the indictment.  Those allegations happen to deal with controlled substances or drugs.  It is your duty as jurors to decide the facts of the case, that is to decide whether or not the government has proved the allegations in the indictment.  The fact that you may disapprove of drugs or believe that drugs are dangerous or for that matter may be positively disposed toward drugs usage should in no way affect your deliberations in the case one way or another.  Your deliberations should not include any factors or considerations outside determining what the facts are in this case.  It is your duty as jurors to be impartial finders of the facts based on the evidence and not to let any personal feelings that you may have about the subject matter influence your decision about the facts.  In that regard, let me ask the panel is there any person who has any attitudes about drugs, either positive or negative, which would impair their ability to objectively decide the facts without any sympathy or prejudice?
	3.		Has any member of the panel, or a close friend or relative of any member of the panel suffered from a problem with drugs or has in some way had a bad experience with somebody on drugs or that involved drugs.

	4.	Do you believe that the testimony of a government agent or someone working for the government is entitled to a greater weight or importance than the testimony of any other witness?

	5.	Does anyone on the panel believe that because someone is a government agent or is working for the government in some capacity, that he or she is more likely than another person to tell the truth?

	6.	In this case, the prosecution may present evidence and testimony from persons who were involved in criminal activity and who have become government informants.  That means that they may have made a deal with the government and agreed to testify in exchange for money, immunity from prosecution or other benefits.  The testimony of an informer that provides evidence against a defendant for pay, or for immunity from punishment or for personal advantage or vindication, must be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness.  The jury must determine whether the informer's testimony has been affected by interest, or by prejudice against the Defendant.

		(a)	Is there any member of the jury panel who disagrees with what I have just said?

		(b)	Would any of you be unable or unwilling to consider informant testimony in this light?

							Respectfully Submitted,

							___________________________________
							Attorney for Defendant
							State Bar No. 
							Address
							City, State, Zip
							Telephone
							Attorney for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

	This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Defendant's Request For Questions To Be Submitted To Prospective Jurors was hand delivered to ///, Assistant United States Attorney, ____________________________________ on the /// day of ///, 20///.

							______________________________________
							Attorney for Defendant