The United States respectfully requests that this Honorable Court provide a general verdict form consistent with the charges as alleged in the Superseding Indictment. Although the Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari in Yates v. United States, that fact alone should not be read as an indication that the term "tangible object" should not be given its ordinary meaning. Unlike the Yates case, the instant case involves tangible items (not living creatures) such as a backpack that is capable of holding information and being altered. The government believes the definition of "tangible object" in 18 U.S.C. § 1519 encompasses digital storage devices such as the laptop computer and thumb drive as well as the other the items charged in the indictment, including the backpack,fireworks, and jar of Vaseline.

If the Court disagrees with the government's position, rather than narrowing Count One
of the Indictment to exclude any references to the backpack, fireworks, and jar of Vaseline, the
government respectfully requests that the Court use the attached special verdict form.

The Government is really reaching with the backpack. In one of their earlier motions, they argued that the backpack had been "altered" within the meaning of the obstruction statute because it was grimy and dirty when they found it at the land mill.

The defense insists the jury must be unanimous as to overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and the means of obstruction: concealment, disposal, destruction, etc.