1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 )

v. ) No. 12 CR 124

 ) 

WILLIAM BEAVERS ) Hon. James B. Zagel

 )

 

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS & OBJECTION TO 

GOVERNMENT’S MODIFIED INSTRUCTIONS 25 & 26 

The Defendant, William Beavers, by and through his counsel, respectfully 

submits the attached proposed jury instructions. Defendant continues his

previously made objections in open court. In addition, Defendant submits the

following objection to the Government’s Modified Instructions 25 and 26.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Lauren Kaeseberg

One of the Attorneys for 

William Beavers

 

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 

SAMUEL F. ADAM

SAMUEL E. ADAM

VICTOR HENDERSON

Henderson Adam, LLC

330 S. Wells Street, Suite 1410

Chicago, IL 60606

(312) 726-2326

SHELDON SOROSKY

AARON GOLDSTEIN
2

LAUREN KAESEBERG

158 W. Erie

Chicago, IL 60654

(312) 640-1776
3

If the defendant believes in good faith that he is acting within the law or that his 

actions comply with the law, he cannot be said to have acted corruptly, or with the 

purpose to obtain an unlawful benefit for himself or someone else. This is so even if 

the defendant’s belief was not objectively reasonable. However, you may consider 

the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief together with all the other evidence to 

determine whether the defendant held the belief in good faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION 1 

 

26 U.S.C. § 7212 “GOOD FAITH”

26 U.S.C. § 7212 “GOOD FAITH” Committee Comment: See Cheek v. United 

States, 498 U.S. 192, 202, 204–06 (1991); United States v. Becker, 965 F.2d 383, 388 

(7th Cir. 1992).

[NOTE: Defendant requests that this instruction follow Government Instruction 18, which is 

the elements instruction for §7212.]
4

When a taxpayer receives a loan, he incurs an obligation to repay that loan at some 

future date. Because of this obligation, the loan proceeds do not qualify as income 

to the taxpayer. When he fulfills the obligation, the repayment of the loan likewise 

has no effect on his tax liability.”

DEFENDANT INSTRUCTION NO. 2

Comm’r v. Tufts, 461 U.S. 300, 307 (1983) [exact quote]

[Defendant requests that this language replace the language in Paragraph 1 of Govt 

Instruction No 26A. Defendant does not object to Paragraph 2.] 
5

OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTION 25: 

Defendant renews his objections made in open court and objects to the use of this

instruction as it is overly broad and vague. The tax code (sections 61 and 63) defines

what does not constitute income and this instruction does not aid the jury.

 
6

OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTION 26: 

Defendant objects to the use of “personal use” because it is overly broad and vague. 

It encompasses nontaxable uses and is misleading to the jury. The language in this 

instruction is similar to the Government’s original Instruction 26 (which was 

withdrawn) and raises the same problems.

Defendant also objects to the use of a “for example” clause of the instruction. The 

jury should be guided only by the law and the facts of this case.

If the Court gives this instruction, the Defendant requests that the following 

language be added to the end of Paragraph 2:

However, if the funds are a loan, the amount paid is not 

taxable income to the candidate. 
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 

I hereby certify that on the 20th day of March, 2013, I electronically filed the 

following document:

DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS & OBJECTIONS TO

GOVERNMENT MODIFIED INSTRUCTIONS NUMBERS 25 & 26

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification 

of such filing to all counsel of record.

/s/ Lauren Kaeseberg