Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00541/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00541-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Ching En Lee
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN CHING EN LEE,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cr-00541-SI-1 

ORDER RE: JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The parties have each filed proposed jury instructions. Docket Nos. 96, 100, 106. 

Pursuant to the Court’s final pretrial scheduling order, the parties have also filed joint preliminary 

jury instructions and objections to each other’s proposed jury instructions. Docket Nos. 107, 110, 

111. The Court hereby rules as follows as to the instructions: 

No. 9th Cir. 

Model No.

Title Agreed/ 

Disputed By

Given/ 

Not Given

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS

Joint 1 1.1 Duty of Jury Parties agree Given

Joint 2 1.2 (with 

modifications)

The Charge - Presumption of Innocence Parties agree Given

Joint 3 1.3 What is Evidence Parties agree Given

Joint 4 1.4 What is Not Evidence Parties agree Given

Joint 5 1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Parties agree Given

Joint 6 1.6 Ruling on Objections Parties agree Given

Joint 7 1.7 Credibility of Witnesses Parties agree Given

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 1 of 6
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Joint 8 1.8 Conduct of the Jury Parties agree Given

Joint 9 1.9 No Transcript Available to Jury Parties agree Given

Joint 10 1.10 Taking Notes Parties agree Given

Joint 11 1.11 (with 

modifications)

Outline of Trial Parties agree Given

Joint 12 1.12 (with 

modifications)

Jury to Be Guided by Official English 

Translation

Parties agree Given

Joint 13 N/A Federal Agent's Testimony Govt objects Not Given

INSTRUCTIONS IN THE COURSE OF TRIAL

Joint 14 2.1 Cautionary Instruction - First Recess Parties agree Given

Joint 15 2.2 Bench Conferences and Recesses Parties agree Given

Joint 16 2.4 Stipulations of Fact Parties agree Given

Joint 17 2.9 Foreign Language Testimony (if 

necessary)

Parties agree Given, if 

necessary

INSTRUCTIONS AT END OF CASE

Govt 15, 

Def 181

3.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow 

Law

Parties agree Given

Govt 16, 

Def 19

3.2 (with 

modifications)

Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence 

- Presumption of Innocence - Burden of 

Proof

Parties agree Given

Govt 17, 

Def 20

3.3 Defendant's Decision Not to Testify (if 

necessary)

Parties agree Given, if 

necessary

Govt 18, 

Def 21

3.4 Defendant's Decision to Testify (if 

necessary)

Parties agree Given, if 

necessary

 

1 References to defendant’s jury instructions are to the revised instructions filed June 17, 

2016. See Docket No. 106.

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 2 of 6
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Govt 19, 

Def 22

3.5 Reasonable Doubt - Defined Parties agree Given

Gov 20, 

Def 23

3.6 What is Evidence Parties agree Given

Govt 21, 

Def 24

3.7 What is Not Evidence Parties agree Given

Govt 22, 

Def 25

3.8 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Parties agree Given

Govt 23, 

Def 26

3.9 Credibility of Witnesses Parties agree Given

Def 27 N/A Federal Agent Testimony Govt objects Not Given

Govt 24, 

Def 28

3.10 (with 

modifications)

Activities Not Charged Parties agree Given

Govt 25, 

Def 29

3.11 Separate Consideration of Multiple 

Counts - Single Defendant

Parties agree Given

Def 30 3.19 Jury to Be Guided by Official English 

Translation (if necessary)

Parties agree Given, if 

necessary

CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR EVIDENCE

Govt 26, 

Def 31

4.1 Statements by Defendant Parties agree Given

Govt 27 4.6 Impeachment, Prior Conviction of 

Defendant (if necessary)

Govt 

requested

Given, if 

necessary

Govt 28 4.8 Impeachment Evidence - Witness (if 

necessary)

Govt 

requested

Given, if 

necessary

Govt 29 4.15 Summaries Not Received in Evidence (if 

necessary)

Govt 

requested

Given, if 

necessary

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 3 of 6
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Govt 30 4.16 Charts and Summaries in Evidence (if 

necessary)

Govt 

requested

Given, if 

necessary

SPECIFIC DEFENSES

Def 32 N/A Good Faith Defense Govt objects Not Given

JURY DELIBERATIONS

Govt 34, 

Def 33

7.1 Duty to Deliberate Parties agree Given

Govt 35, 

Def 34

7.2 Consideration of Evidence Parties agree Given

Govt 36, 

Def 35

7.3 Use of Notes Parties agree Given

Govt 37 7.4 Jury Consideration of Punishment Govt 

requested

Given

Govt 38, 

Def 36

7.5 Verdict Form Parties agree Given

Govt 39, 

Def 37

7.6 Communication with Court Parties agree Given

OFFENSES UNDER TITLE 18

Govt 31 8.73 (with 

modifications)

False Statement to Government Agency Def objects See Court 

Instruction, 

infra

Def 38 8.73 (with 

modifications)

Making a False Statement to Government 

Agency - Count 1

Govt objects See Court 

Instruction, 

infra

Def 39 8.73 (with 

modifications)

Making a False Statement to Government 

Agency - Count 2

Govt objects See Court 

Instruction, 

infra

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 4 of 6
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Govt 32 3.20 On or About - Defined Govt 

requested

Given

Govt 33 5.6 Knowingly - Defined Govt 

requested

Given

MISCELLANEOUS

Def 40 N/A Power of the Jury Govt objects Not Given

Jury instructions as to the offense of Making a False Statement to a Government Agency 

shall read as follows: 

FALSE STATEMENT TO

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

(18 U.S.C. § 1001) – Count One

Mr. Lee is charged in Count One with knowingly and willfully making a false statement on 

or about August 26, 2009, in a matter within the jurisdiction of a governmental agency or 

department, the Department of Homeland Security, in violation of Section 1001 of Title 18 of the 

United States Code. In order for Mr. Lee to be found guilty of that charge, the government must 

prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, Mr. Lee made a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department 

of Homeland Security;

Second, Mr. Lee acted willfully; that is, Mr. Lee acted deliberately and with knowledge 

both that the statement was untrue and that his conduct was unlawful; and

Third, the statement was material to the activities or decisions of the Department of 

Homeland Security; that is, it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, 

the agency’s decisions or activities.

The statement charged in Count One is that Mr. Lee stated: 

[LIST STATEMENTS INTRODUCED AT TRIAL]

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 5 of 6
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

FALSE STATEMENT TO

GOVERNMENT AGENCY

(18 U.S.C. § 1001) – Count Two

Mr. Lee is charged in Count Two with knowingly and willfully making a false statement

on or about October 10, 2013, in a matter within the jurisdiction of a governmental agency or 

department, the Department of Homeland Security, in violation of Section 1001 of Title 18 of the 

United States Code. In order for Mr. Lee to be found guilty of that charge, the government must 

prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, Mr. Lee made a false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the Department 

of Homeland Security;

Second, Mr. Lee acted willfully; that is, Mr. Lee acted deliberately and with knowledge 

both that the statement was untrue and that his conduct was unlawful; and

Third, the statement was material to the activities or decisions of the Department of 

Homeland Security; that is, it had a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, 

the agency’s decisions or activities.

The statement charged in Count Two is that Mr. Lee stated: 

[LIST STATEMENTS INTRODUCED AT TRIAL]

If the government charges more than one false statement in either Count One or Count 

Two, the Court will give a specific unanimity instruction. If the government charges one 

statement in each count, the Court finds that no separate unanimity instruction will be required. 

The Court also notes that the government is incorrect that “the defendant adds the 

requirement that the defendant knew ‘that his conduct was unlawful.’” See Docket No. 110 at 4. 

This language appears in the Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Instruction 8.73 and is explained by 

the comment citing Ajoku v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1872 (Mem.) (2014). The government

included this same requirement in its own proposed jury instruction number 31. See Docket No. 

100 at 36-37. The Court therefore retains this language in the jury instruction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cr-00541-SI Document 113 Filed 06/22/16 Page 6 of 6