Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6385 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`BIENERT KATZMAN
`LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr., SBN 135311
`James D. Riddet, SBN 39826
`Whitney Z. Bernstein, SBN 304917
`Carlos A. Nevarez, SBN 324407
`903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350
`San Clemente, California 92673
`Telephone: (949) 369-3700
`Email: tbienert@bklwlaw.com
` jriddet@bklwlaw.com
` wbernstein@bklwlaw.com
` cnevarez@bklwlaw.com
`
`
`Attorneys For Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`
`BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT
`NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`Gary S. Lincenberg, SBN 123058
`Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk, SBN 261646
`Darren L. Patrick, SBN 310727
`Alexis A. Wiseley, SBN 330100
`1875 Century Park East, Floor 23
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Email: glincenberg@birdmarella.com
` nvandyk@birdmarella.com
` dpatrick@birdmarella.com
` awiseley@birdmarella.com
`
`
`Attorneys For Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`WIECHERT, MUNK &
`GOLDSTEIN, PC
`David W. Wiechert, SBN 94607
`Jessica C. Munk, SBN 238832
`27136 Paseo Espada, Suite B1123
`San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
`Telephone: (949) 361-2822
`Email: dwiechert@aol.com
` jessica@wmgattorneys.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys For Jacob Bychak
`
`
`MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS,
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`Randy K. Jones, SBN 141711
`3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
`San Diego, Ca 92130
`Telephone: (858) 314-1510
`Email: rkjones@mintz.com
`
`Daniel J. Goodrich, BBO 692624 (Pro Hac)
`Ryan Dougherty, BBO 703380 (Pro Hac)
`1 Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Email: djgoodrich@mintz.com
` rtdougherty@mintz.com
`
`
`Attorneys For Mark Manoogian
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6386 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JACOB BYCHAK, et al.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
`PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION.
`
`At the hearing on May 6, 2022, the Court ordered the parties to file preliminary jury
`
`instructions to include definitions of relevant terms that jurors would not otherwise know.
`
`Dkt. 406. Accordingly, Jacob Bychak, Mark Manoogian, Mohammed Abdul Qayyum, and
`
`Petr Pacas (“Defendants”), by and through counsel, submit the following preliminary
`
`instructions.
`
`\ \ \
`
`\ \ \
`
`\ \ \
`
`\ \ \
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6387 Page 3 of 12
`
`Model Jury
`Instruction
`No.
`
`Proposed
`Instruction
`No.
`
`
`
`1.1
`
`1.2 (as
`modified)
`
`
`
`1.3
`(include
`point 3)
`
`1.4
`
`1.5 (as
`modified)
`
`1.6
`
`
`
`1.7 (as
`modified)
`
`1.8
`
`1.9
`
`1.10
`
`1.11
`
`1.13
`
`1.14
`
`1.16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Duty of Jury
`
`The Charge — Presumption of Innocence
`
`Sending Spam is Not Illegal
`
`What is Evidence
`
`What is Not Evidence
`
`Direct and Circumstantial Evidence
`
`Ruling on Objections
`
`Credibility of Witnesses
`
`Conduct of the Jury
`
`No Transcript Available to the Jury
`
`Taking Notes
`
`Outline of Trial
`
`Separate Consideration for Each Defendant
`
`Questions to Witnesses by Jurors During Trial
`
`Bench Conferences and Recesses
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6388 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO.
`DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 1
`
`
`
`1.2 – The Charge—Presumption of Innocence (as modified)
`
`This is a criminal case brought by the United States government. The government
`
`charges Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas with: (1) Conspiracy;
`
`(2) Wire Fraud; and (3) Electronic Mail Fraud. The charges against Mr. Bychak,
`
`Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas are contained in the indictment. The
`
`indictment simply describes the charges the government brings against Mr. Bychak,
`
`Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas. The indictment is not evidence and does not
`
`prove anything.
`
`
`
`Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas have each pleaded not
`
`guilty to the charges and are presumed innocent unless the jury unanimously finds that the
`
`government has proven each of them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition,
`
`Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas have the right to remain silent
`
`and never have to prove innocence or to present any evidence.
`
`
`
`To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a brief summary of the terms
`
`you will hear about in this case:
`
`
`
`ARIN – ARIN is the American Registry for Internet Numbers, which is the regional Internet
`
`registry for the United States that was founded in 1997. It is a non-governmental
`
`organization that manages the distribution of Internet number resources.
`
`
`
`Spamhaus – The Spamhaus Project is an international organization based overseas in the
`
`Principality of Andorra (a microstate on the Iberian Peninsula). Spamhaus was founded in
`
`1998 and its self-proclaimed mission is to eliminate all forms of commercial email and
`
`identify companies and individuals it deems to be sending spam. Spamhaus is not a
`
`governmental or law enforcement agency. It does not operate in the United States and is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6389 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`not subject to American laws.
`
`
`
`IP Addresses – Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses are a series of numbers that identify any
`
`device on a network. Computers use IP addresses to communicate with each other both
`
`over the Internet as well as on other networks.
`
`
`
`IP Announcement – To announce an IP address means someone notifies the Internet that
`
`they have permission to use that IP address.
`
`
`
`Netblocks – A netblock is a range of consecutive IP addresses.
`
`
`
`Registrant – A “registrant” of an IP address is the person or entity who has entered into a
`
`Registration Services Agreement (“RSA”) with ARIN.
`
`
`
`Spam – Spam is unsolicited commercial messages sent in bulk by email.
`
`
`
`To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a brief summary of the elements
`
`of the crimes that the government must prove to convict the defendants:
`
`
`
`
`
`To convict Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas of conspiracy,
`
`the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
`
`[Model Jury Instruction 11.5 for Conspiracy]
`
`
`
`
`
`To convict Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas of wire fraud,
`
`the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[Model Jury Instruction 15.35 for Wire Fraud]
`
`To convict Mr. Bychak, Mr. Manoogian, Mr. Qayyum, and Mr. Pacas of electronic
`
`
`4
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6390 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`mail fraud in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, the government must prove, beyond a
`
`reasonable doubt, that:
`
`First, each defendant knowingly and falsely represented themselves to be the
`
`registrant and the legitimate successor in interest to the registrant of five and more Internet
`
`Protocol addresses;
`
`
`
`Second, each defendant intentionally initiated the transmission of multiple
`
`commercial electronic mail messages from such addresses;
`
`Third, the volume of electronic mail messages transmitted in furtherance of the
`
`offense exceeded 2,500 during any 24-hour period, 25,000 during any 30-day period, and
`
`250,000 during any 1-year period;
`
`
`
`Fourth, there was no right for recipients of the electronic mails to decline to receive
`
`additional electronic mail from the same source; and
`
`Fifth, each defendant knowingly used, or caused to be used, electronic mails affecting
`
`interstate commerce.
`
`
`
`Authority
`
`9th Cir. Jury Instr. 1.2 (modified); See United States v. Cummings, 468 F.2d
`274, 280 (9th Cir. 1972) (the presumption of innocence remains “throughout
`the trial” and goes “with the jury when it deliberates”; “the presumption does
`not disappear when evidence to the contrary is received.”); 18 U.S.C. §
`1037(a)(5); 9th Cir. Jury Instr. 15.32 & 15.35; “The CAN-SPAM Act was
`enacted to prevent senders of electronic mail from deceiving recipients ‘as to
`the source of content of such mail’ and to ensure that recipients ‘have a right
`to decline to receive additional commercial electronic mail from the same
`source.’” United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240, 1256 (9th Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6391 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO.
`
`DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 2
`
`
`
`Sending Spam is Not Illegal
`
`Sending unsolicited, commercial mass electronic mail messages, colloquially known
`
`as “spam,” is not illegal. Sending advertisements by email is an established and worthwhile
`
`device in the toolbox of accepted marketing practices, which Congress did not intend to
`
`ban.
`
`
`
`Authority
`
`Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1045, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 2009)
`(Ninth Circuit recognized that the Controlling the Assault of Non–Solicited
`Pornography and Marketing (“CAN–SPAM”) Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 7701
`et seq., “does not ban spam outright, but rather provides a code of conduct to
`regulate commercial e-mail messaging practices” and “consumers and
`Congress have come to view e-mail, when fairly employed, as an established
`and worthwhile device in the toolbox of accepted marketing practices”); White
`Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 420 F.3d 366, 376, 368-69
`(5th Cir. 2005) (Fifth Circuit acknowledged that sending spam is not in and of
`itself illegal, but rather there is a distinction between “legitimate” spam and
`“illegal” spam that violates federal and state regulations); United States v.
`Kilbride, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1051, 1055 (D. Ariz. 2007) (“The CAN–SPAM Act
`did not make the mere sending of bulk emails a crime. Congress acted more
`narrowly”); Livingston v. United States, No. 19-CV-12656, 2020 WL
`5525536, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 15, 2020) (in addressing petitioner’s claim that
`he was “factually innocent” because “spam is legal,” a New Jersey district
`court distinguished his actions with legal spamming, noting that “Petitioner
`was prosecuted for
`the particular (and illegal) way he went about
`sending spam, not the mere act of spamming”).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6392 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO.
`
`DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 3
`
`
`
`1.5 – Direct and Circumstantial Evidence (as modified)
`
`Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact,
`
`such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.
`
`Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or more facts from
`
`which one can find another fact.
`
`Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to
`
`find a defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the prosecution has
`
`proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.
`
`Also, before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty,
`
`you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial
`
`evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions
`
`from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to a
`
`defendant’s innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to
`
`innocence. However, when considering circumstantial evidence, you must accept only
`
`reasonable conclusions and reject any that are unreasonable.
`
`
`
`Authority
`
`9th Cir. Jury Instr. 1.5 (modified); Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury
`Instructions (CALCRIM) 224 - Circumstantial Evidence: Sufficiency of
`Evidence (2007).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6393 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO.
`
`DEFENDANT'S PROPOSED INSTRUCTION NO. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`1.7 – Credibility of Witnesses (as modified)
`
`In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe
`
`and which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of
`
`it, or none of it.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
`
`(1)
`
`the witness’s opportunity and ability to see or hear or know the things testified
`
`to;
`
`(2)
`
`the witness’s memory;
`
`(3)
`
`the witness’s manner while testifying;
`
`(4)
`
`the witness’s interest in the outcome of the case, if any;
`
`(5)
`
`the witness’s bias or prejudice, such as whether or not the witness is receiving
`
`benefits for their testimony, if any;
`
`(6) whether other evidence contradicted the witness’s testimony;
`
`(7)
`
`the reasonableness of the witness’s testimony in light of all the evidence;
`
`(8) whether the witness made any prior inconsistent statements; and
`
`(9)
`
`any other factors that bear on believability.
`
`The weight of the evidence as to a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of
`
`witnesses who testify. What is important is how believable the witnesses were, and how
`
`much weight you think their testimony deserves.
`
`
`
`Authority
`
`9th Cir. Jury Instr. 1.7 (modified); 9th Cir. Jury Instr. 6.9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6394 Page 10 of 12
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL
`WILLIAMS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 11, 2022
`
`
`Dated: May 11, 2022
`
`
`Dated: May 11, 2022
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.
`James D. Riddet
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Carlos A. Nevarez
`Attorneys for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum
`
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
`GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Randy K. Jones
`Randy K. Jones
`Daniel J. Goodrich (Pro Hac)
`Ryan Dougherty (Pro Hac)
`Attorneys for Mark Manoogian
`
`WIECHERT, MUNK & GOLDSTEIN, PC
`
`By: /s/ Jessica C. Munk
`David W. Wiechert
`Jessica C. Munk
`Attorneys for Jacob Bychak
`
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW, P.C.
`
`By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Nicole Rodriguez Van Dyk
`Darren L. Patrick
`Alexis A. Wiseley
`Attorneys for Petr Pacas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`18-cr-04683-GPC
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6395 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN SIGNATURE
`
`The undersigned counsel of record for Mohammed Abdul Qayyum certifies that the
`
`content of this document is acceptable to each of the Defendants’ counsel whose electronic
`
`signature appears thereon, and that I have obtained their authorization to sign this document
`
`on their behalf.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein
` Whitney Z. Bernstein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN SIGNATURE
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:18-cr-04683-GPC Document 415 Filed 05/11/22 PageID.6396 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Counsel for the Defendant certifies that the foregoing pleading has been
`
`electronically served on the following parties by virtue of their registration with the
`
`CM/ECF system:
`
`
`AUSA Melanie K. Pierson
`AUSA Sabrina L. Fève
`AUSA Ashley E. Goff
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`880 Front Street, Rm 6293
`San Diego, CA 92101
`melanie.pierson@usdoj.gov
`sabrina.feve@usdoj.gov
`ashley.goff@usdoj.gov
`
`Candina S. Heath
`U.S. Department of Justice
`1301 New York Avenue NW, Suite 600
`Washington, DC 20530
`candina.heath2@usdoj.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 11, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein
`Whitney Z. Bernstein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`3:18-cr-04683-GPC
`
`