T he H o n o r a b l e Col l e e n M c M a h o n , o f t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Di s t r i c t Cou r t f o rt he 1 Sout her n D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. -1- 05-5047 -cr Un i t edSt at es v. Sh ams i d een UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS
F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT er m , 2006 ( A r gued: M ar ch 6, 2007 D eci ded: J anuary4, 2008) D ocketN o. 05- 5047- cr
U NI TED S T A T E S OF A MERI CA , Appel l ee ,

— v . — R ON AL D G L OV ER , a ls o k n o w n a s “ B o rn R e a lity,”

a ls o k n o w a s “ N ig e l G lo v e r,” D ef endant , K ASI B S HA MS I DEE N , al so kn ow n as “E ri c B aker, ” al so kn ow n as “ D a v id A . J o h n s o n ,” a ls o k n o w n a s “ T itu s L a n c h e s te r,” D ef endant

-Appel l ant .
B efor e: P OOL ER and R AG GI , C i r cui tJudges , and M C M AH ON , D is t r i ct Judge
. 1

__________________-2-

A p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f c o n v i c t i o n f o r u n l a w f

u l p o s s e s s i o n o f a f

i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on, s ee 18 U
. S. C
. § 922( g) ( 1) , ent er ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he S o u thern D istri ct o f N ew Y o rk. D ef en d an t co n tend s that the distr ict co u rtco n fu sed the ju ry
as t o t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof w h en it d ef i ned t he j ur y ’ s del i ber at i ve t as k by
r efe r ence t o fi ndi ng t he “trut h. ” A F F I R MED .

J ON ATH AN B. N EW , A s sist an t U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y(H arryS an d ic k, A s s i s t ant U n ite d S ta te s A tto rn e y , on the br i ef ), f or M icha el J
. G ar ci a, U ni t ed St at es A tto rn e yf

o r t h e S o u th e r n D i s t r ic t o f N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or Appel l ee . D AV I D A. L E W IS , F e d e ra l D e f e n d e rs o f N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f or D ef endant

-Appel l ant .

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : D efe ndantK as i b Sham s i dee n appea l s fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on ent er ed on S ep tem b er 7 , 2 0 0 5 , in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r t h e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (S te p h e n C
. R o b i n s o n , Judge ) , aft era j ur yt r i al atw hi ch he w as found gui l t yof unl aw ful p o sses sion o f a firearm b ya c o n v ict ed f e lo n in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). Sham s i deen c ont ends t hat t he di s t r i ctcour ti m per m i s s i bl yr educe d t he governm ent ’ s bur den to pr ove gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubtbychar gi ng t he j ur yt hat“t he cruci al , har d- core ques t i o n ” i n r evi ew i ng t he evi dence w as , “W her e do y ou fi nd t he t rut h, ” and bys t at i ng-3-

fur t hert hat“[t ] he onl yt r i um ph i n anycas e, w het heri t be ci vi l or cr i m i nal , i s w het her ornot t he t rut h [has ] t r i um phed. ” Tri al T r . at370- 71. W h ile th e c h a llen g e d lan g u a g e , v iew e d in i s ol at i on, i s i nadequa t e t o ens ur e t he j ur y ’ s pr operunder s t andi ng of t he governm ent ’ s bur den
o f p roo f, w e co n clud e t h at the ch arg e i n it s en ti rety fa ir ly an d ac cu rately instructed the ju ry t hati tcoul d notfi nd defe ndantgui l t yunl es s t he governm entpr oved ea ch elem en tof t he char ged cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A ccor di ngl y , w e af fi r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on. I . Backg r ound A
. T he C r i m e of Convi ct i on T he t r i al evi dence , vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on, es t abl i s hed t hat , on t he eveni ng of A ugus t 8, 2003, C i t yof Poughkeeps i e pol i ce of fi cer s s t opped a mot or
v e h icle , h a v in g re c e iv e d in f o rm a tio n f

ro m m u lti p le s o u rc e s th a t th e o c c u p a n ts w e re in p o ss e ss io n o f

f ire a rm s. A lm o st im m e d iat e ly, tw o m e n , K a sib S h a m sid e e n a n d R o n a ld G l ov er, exit ed the veh i cl e and at t em pted to fl ee. In the cou rs e of chasi ng and arr est i ng t hese
m en, pol i ce offi cer s obs er ved Sham s i deen pul l a handgun – s ubs equent l yi dent i fi ed as a 9-
m i l l i m et er B eret t a – o ut of hi s w ai stban d an d t hrow i tback t ow ard t he v ehicl e. T he g un w as, in f ac t, rec o v ere d b eh ind the do o r o f t h e ve h icl e as po li ce ap p roa ch ed tw o w o m en p asse n g ers
w ho had exi t ed t he car
. T he pol i ce al s o r ecove r ed a 9- m i l l i m et er I nt r at ec handgun from t he fl oorof t he vehi cl e’ s r ears eaton t he s i de of the ca rfr om w hi ch G l overhad exi t ed. A tt ri al , S ham si deen and G l ov er di sputed t heirpo sses sion o f these fi rear m s.-4-

N ever t hel es s , t hey s t i pul at ed t hat t he guns i n ques t i on had t r avel ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce and t hatt heyeac h had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a fel onycr i m e. B
. T he J ur yC har ge 1. T he Tri al O bj ect i on t o t he C hal l enged I ns t ruct i on T he i ns t ruct i on ati s s ue on t hi s appea l fi r s tappea r ed i n a pr opos ed cha r ge pr evi ew ed b yth e c o u rt f

o r th e p a rties in a d v a n c e o f su m m a tio n . Its a p p a re n t p u rp o se w a s to e x p lain to t he j ur yt hati t s ver di ctm us tbe bas ed on t he evi dence and noton s y m pat hy
. T he cha l l enged lan g u a g e re a d : U n d e r y o u r o a th a s ju ro rs y o u a re n o t to b e sw a y e d b ysy m p a th y . Y o u a re to be gui ded s ol el ybyt he evi dence i n t he cas e and t he cruci al , har d- cor e ques t i on t haty ou m us tas k y our s el ves as y ou s i ftt hr ough t he evi dence i s , w her e do y ou f in d th e tru th ? T h e o n ly triu m p h in a n y c a se , w h e th e r it b e c iv il o r c rim in a l, i s w het herornot t he t rut h has t r i um phed. I f i thas , t hen j us t i ce ha s been done
. I f not , j us t i ce w i l l nothave be en done. Y ou ar e t o det er m ine the gui l tor i nnocenc e of t he def

endanty ou ar e cons i der i ng s ol el yon t he bas i s of t he evi dence and s ubj ectt o t he l aw as I have c har ged y ou. P ro p o s e d C h a rg e a t 5 9 ; s e e a ls o T ri a l T r. a t 2 7 2
. T hr ough couns el , Sham s i deen obj ect ed bot h to thi s l anguage and t o i t s pr opos ed pl ace m entatt he end of t he j u ry ch arge , ar gui ng t hati tw oul d “conf us e a j ur yaboutt he G o v e rn m e n t’ s b u rd e n . . . . to p ro v e [ g u ilt] b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.” T ri a l T r. a t 2 7 2
. H e re q u ested that the c o u rtinstead em p loythe m o d el sy m p athy ch arg e e n d o rsed in M o d ern F ederal JuryInstruct i on s, w hich r eads: U n d e r y o u r o a th a s ju ro rs y o u a re n o t to b e sw a y e d b y sy m p a th y . Y o u a re to b e g u ided so lel yb ythe e v iden ce in this c a se a n d the c ruc ial , h ard -co re-5-

ques t i on t haty ou m us tas k y o u rsel f as y ou s i ftt hr ough t he evi dence i s : H as th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e n th e g u ilto f th e d e f e n d a n t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t? L eonar d B
. Sand, etal
. , 1 M oder n Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons : C r i m i nal , I ns t ruct i on 2- 12 (2 0 0 3 ). T h e d istric t co u rt o v e rru led th e o bje c ti o n a n d in d ica ted its in ten t to a d h e re to its p ro p o s e d c h a rg e .

2. T he I ns t ruct i on on B ur den of Pr oof B eca us e Shamsi deen s ubm i t s t hat t he r efe r ence t o “t rut h” i n t he s y m pat hyi ns t ruct i on red u ce d the g o v ern m en t’ s b u rde n o f p roo f, i t i s h elpf u l t o re p ro d u c e th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e taile d in stru c tio n o n th is b u rd e n , the su b sta n c e o f w h ich is no t c h a llen g e d b yd e f e n d a n t. T h e c o u rt sta ted : A s a r es ul tof t he def endant s ’ pl eas of notgui l ty , the burde n i s on t he p ro se c u tio n to p ro v e th e g u ilto f e a c h d e f e n d a n t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T hi s bur den neve rs hi ft s t o a def endantfort he si m pl e re as on that t he l aw never i m pos es upon a defe ndant i n a cr i m i nal cas e t he bur den ordut yof ca l l i ng any w i t nes s es orpr oduci ng anyevi dence
. T he l aw pr es um es t he def endant s y ou ar e cons i der i ng t o be i nnocentof al l t he ch arg es a g ains t th em . I, there fo re, i n stru c t y o u th at ea ch d ef en d an t y o u are cons i der i ng i s pr es um ed by y ou t o be i nnocentt hr oughouty ourdel i ber at i ons unt i l s uch t im e, if ever , y ou, as a j ur y , ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he G over nm enthas p ro v e n th a t p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n t g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T he def endant s begi n t he t r i al her e w i t h a cl ean s l at e. T hi s pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e al one i s s uffi ci entt o acqui ta par t i cul ardefe ndantunl es s y ou, as j ur or s , ar e unani m ous l yconvi nced be y ond a r eas onabl e doubtof hi s gui l taft er a ca r eful and i m par t i al cons i der at i on of al l t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e. I f t he G over nm entfai l s t o s us t ai n i t s bur den, y ou m us t fi nd t he def endant s y ou ar e cons i der i ng not g u il t y . T hi s pr es um pt i on w as w i t h t he def endant s w hen t he t r i al began a nd r emai ns w i t h eac h of t hem eve n now as I s peak t o y ou and-6-

w i l l cont i nue w i t h eac h defe ndanti nt o y ourdel i ber at i ons , unl es s and unt i l y ou a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t h a s p ro v e n th a t p a rticu lar d e f e n d a n t’s g u ilt b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I have s ai d t he G over nm ent m us tpr ove ea ch def endant ’ s gui l tbey ond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . Th e q u e s t i o n n a tur a l l yi s : W h a ti s a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t [ ?] T he w or ds al m os tdefi ne t hemsel ves . I tis a doubtbas ed upon r eas on and c o m m o n se n se . It i s a d o u b t th a t a r e a so n a b le p e rso n h a s a f ter c a re f u lly w e ig h in g a ll th e e v id e n c e . It i s a d o u b t w h ich w o u ld c a u se a re a so n a b le per s o n t o h e s i t a t e t o a c t i n a ma t t e r o f i mpo r t a n c e i n h i s o r h e r p e r s o n al l i fe. Pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtm us t , t her efor e, be pr oof of s uch a convi nci ng cha r act ert hata r eas onabl e per s on w oul d nothes i t at e t o r el yand actupon i ti n t he mosti m por t antof hi s or her ow n aff ai r s . A r eas onabl e doubt i s nota ca pr i ce ora w him , it i s nota s pecul at i on ora s us pi ci on, i ti s notan e x c u s e t o a v o i d a n u n p l e a s a n td u t y. I ti s n o ts ym p a t h y. I n a cr i m i nal cas e, t he bur den i s atal l t i m es upon t he G over nm entt o pr ove b ey o n d — to p rov e g u il t b ey o n d a reaso n ab le d o u b t. T h e l aw d o es no t r eq u ir e t hatt he G over nm entpr ove gui lt b ey o n d al l pos s i bl e doubt
. Pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubti s s uffi ci en t to convi ct . T hi s bur den neve rs hi ft s t o t he defe ndant , w hi ch m eans i t i s al w ay s t he G over nm ent ’ s bur den t o pr ove ea ch o f th e e lem e n ts o f

th e c rim e s c h a rg e d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. I f a f t e r f a i r a n d i mpa r t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , y o u have a r eas onabl e doubt , i ti s y our dut y t o acqui t t he def endanty ou ar e cons i der i ng. O n t he ot her hand, i f aft er fai rand i m par t i al cons i der at i on of al l t he evi dence , y o u a re sa tisf

ied o f a p a rticu lar d e f

e n d a n t’s g u ilt b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, y o u sh o u ld v o te to c o n v ict. T ri a l T r. a t 3 4 3 -4 5
. E lse w h e re in th e c h a rg e , th e c o u rt re p e a ted lya llu d e d to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n to p ro v e g u ilt“ b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t” to su p p o rt c o n v ictio n . T h e c o u rt re itera ted th is
s t andar d w hen cha r gi ng on t he fol l ow i ng poi nt s : t he j ur y ’ s obl i gat i on t o bas e i t s ver di cton t he evi dence , t he us e of c i r cumst ant i al evi dence , t he rol e of i nfer ence s , t he el ement s of t he-7-

cr i m e, defe nd an t G lover ’ s ar gum entaboutt he l ack of i ncr i m i nat i ng fi ngerpr i ntevi dence , d ef en d an ts’ ri g h t n o t to test ify , the u se o f seize d ev iden ce , the fu n cti o n o f th e jury , the ju ry ’s dut yt o acqui ti f t he governm entfai l ed t o ca rry it s bur den, and t he j ur y ’ s dut ynott o be inf luen ce d b yco n side rati o n s o f p u n ishm en t. Ind ee d , thro u g h o u t the ch arg e, the distr ictco u rt sta ted n o les s th a n tw e n ty -se v e n tim e s th a t it w a s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n to p ro v e g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t.

3. T he Suppl ement al I ns t ruct i on A ft ert he ent i r e cha r ge, i ncl udi ng t he l anguage at i s s ue on t hi s appea l , w as r ead t o t he ju ry , d e f e n d a n ts ra ise d a se p a ra te o bje c tio n to th e c o u rt’s in stru c tio n th a t th e ju ryw a s “ to d e te rm in e th e g u ilt o r i n n o c e n c e o f th e d e f e n d a n t.” Id . a t 3 7 3 -7 4
. T heyr eques t ed t hatt he j ur ybe t ol d t hat“t he ques t i on i s notgui l tori nnocenc e” but , r at her , “w het hert he G over nm ent has pr oven i t s cas e be y o n d a r eas onabl e doubt
. ” I d. at374. T he di s t r i ctcour tagr eed, pr ovi di ng t he j ur y w i t h t he fol l ow i ng fi nal i ns t ruct i on on t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof: I m ay have m i s s poken ear l i er t o t he ext ent t hat I s ai d y ou ar e t o det er m i ne t he gui l t or i nnocenc e of the def endant
. Y ourj ob i s t o det er m i ne w het hert he G over nm enthas pr oven t he gui l tof t he def endantbey ond a re as onabl e doubt or t o d et erm i ne thatt he d efen dan ti s n o t guil t y . B oth of t ho se y ou m ust d e ter m in e b a se d o n th e e v id e n c e in th is c a se a n d th e law a s I h a v e g iv e n it t o yo u . E i t h e ro f

t h o s e yo u m u s td e t e r m i n e b y a u n a n i m o u s j u r y. S o let m e ju st re sta te th is. Y o u a r e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e d e f e n d a n t is gui l t yornotgui l t ycons i der i ng s ol el y – cons i der ed s ol el y on t he bas i s of t he evi dence and s ubj ectt o t he l aw as I have c har ged y ou. Id . a t 3 7 5 -7 6
.-8-

B
. V er di ctand Sent ence A ft era dayof del i ber at i ons , t he j ur yr etur ned a gui l t y ver di ct agai ns t Sham s i deen a nd a not - gui l t yver di ctagai ns tG l over . O n A u g u st 3 1, 2005, t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d S ham si deen t o a p ri son ter m of thi rty -ni ne m on t hs. I I . D i s cus s i on A
. St andar d of R evi ew S h a m sid e e n su b m its th a t, b y in stru c tin g th e ju ro rs th a t th e ir d e lib e ra tiv e tas k w a s to “fi nd the t rut h, ” t he dis t ri ctcou rti den t i fi ed a st and ard for conv i ct i on differ ent fr om and l ess demandi ng t han t he rul e of c ons t i tut i onal s uffi ci ency . T hatrul e, der i ved from t he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, s t at es t hatno convi ct i on m aybe obt ai ned “e xceptup o n pr oof bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubtof eve r yfac tnece s s ar yt o cons t i tut e t he cr i m e . . . char ged. ” I n r e W i ns hi p, 3 9 7 U .S . 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 (1 9 7 0 ); s e e a ls o J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 8 (1 9 7 9 ). W e r evi ew l egal chal l enges t o a di s t r i ct court ’ s j ur y char ge de novo. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R om m y , 506 F. 3d 108, 118 ( 2d C i r . 2007) (col l ect i ng cas es )
. W her e an a l l eged chargi ng err or g o e s to th e bu rden of proof , w e w i l l rever se a con vict i on i f t here i s a “r eas onabl e l i k el i hood” t hatt he j ur yunder s t ood t he i ns t ruct i ons t o per m i ta gui l t yver di ct b a s e d o n le s s t h a n p ro o f b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. V ic to r v . N e b ra s k a , 5 1 1 U .S . 1 , 6 ( 1994) ; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. D ia z, 176 F. 3d 52, 101- 02 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D oy l e, 130 F. 3d 523, 535- 36 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed S t at es v. B i rbal , 62 F. 3d 456, 461 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( not i ng t hat “a cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci entr eas onabl e- doubti ns t ruct i on can-9-

n e v e r b e h a rm le s s e rr o r” ). In a ss e ss in g su c h a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d , w e re c o g n ize th a t “n o t ev e ryu n h e lp f u l,
unw i s e, or even er r oneous form ul at i on of t he concept of re as onabl e doubt i n a j ur ychar ge
r ender s t he i ns t ruct i on cons t i tut i onal l ydefi ci ent . ” V ar gas v. K eane , 86 F. 3d 1273, 1277 ( 2d C i r . 1996)
. T hus , w e do notr evi ew chal l enged l anguage “i n i s ol at i on”; r at her , w e cons i der t he cha r ge i n i t s “ent i r et yt o det er m i ne w het her , on t he w hol e, [i t ] pr ovi ded t he j ur yw i t h an i nt el l i gi bl e and a ccur at e por t r ay al of t he appl i cabl e l aw . ” U ni t ed St at es v. W ei nt r aub, 273 F
. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 5 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ; s e e a l s o Cu p p v . Na u g h t e n , 4 1 4 U. S
. 1 4 1 , 1 4 6
- 4 7 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ( “ [ A]
s i ngl e i ns t ruct i on t o a j ur y m ay notbe j udged i n ar t i fi ci al i s ol at i on, butm us tbe vi ew ed i n t he
con t ext of t he ov e r a l l c ha r ge . ” )
. I n s ome c i r c ums t a nc e s , a s pe c i fi c i ns t ruc t i on maybe “so farr emoved” fr om t he st andar ds r equi r ed by l aw as t o on i t s ow n s uppor ta conc l us i on t hat th e j u r y w a s lik e ly m is le d b yit. U n ite d S ta te s v . D y e r, 9 2 2 F .2 d 1 0 5 , 1 0 7 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). In F ra n c is v . F ra n k lin , h o w e v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d w h yto talityre v iew is par t i cul ar l ynece s sar yi n as s es s i ng cl ai m s t hatdi s cr et e cha r gi ng l anguage r educe d t he g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f: A nal y s is m u stfocus i ni t i al l yon t he s peci fi c l anguage chal l enged, butt he i nqui r ydoes notend t her e. I f a s peci fi c por t i on of t he j ur ychar ge, cons i der ed i n i s ol at i on, coul d r eas onabl yhave be en under s t ood as cr eat i ng a pr es um pt i on t hatr el i eves t he St at e of i t s bur den of pe r s uas i on on an el ement of an off ens e, t he pot ent i al l y offe ndi ng w or ds m us t be cons i der ed i n t he cont extof t he cha r ge a s a w h o le. O th e r in stru c tio n s m ig h t ex p lain th e p a rticu lar in f irm lan g u a g e to t he ext entt hata r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d not have cons i der ed t he cha r ge t o have cr eat ed an unc ons t i tut i onal pr es um pt i on . . . . T he j ur y , of cour s e, di d nothear onl yt h e t wo c h a l l e n g e d s e n t e n c e s . Th e j u r yc h a r g e t a k e n a s a who l e mi g ht-10-

have expl ai ned t he prope r al l ocat i on of bur dens w i t h s uffi ci entcl ar i t yt hatany ambi gui t yi n t he par t i cul arl anguage chall en g ed coul d nothave be en under s t ood bya r eas onabl e j ur oras s hi ft i ng t he bur den of pe r s uas i on. 471 U
. S. 307, 315, 318- 19 ( 1985) ; acc or d V ar gas v. K eane , 86 F. 3d at1277 ( “[A ] n as s er t ed
er r ori n a r easo n ab le d oubti ns t ruct i on m aybe i nnocuous ori ncons equent i al w hen vi ew ed i n t he cont extof t he cha r ge as a w hol e; s ur r ounded bydi ffe r entl angu ag e in a di ffe r ent char ge, how ever , t he s ame l anguage m aycr eat e a c ons t i tut i onal i nfi r m i t y . ”)
. U nder t aki ng to talityre v iew in th is c a se , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c h a llen g e d c h a rg e w a s n o t co n stitu tio n a lly in f ir m . B
. T h e C h all en g ed “T ruth ” Instruc ti o n , V iew ed in th e C o n text o f t h e E n tir e

C harge, D i d N ot V i olat e D ue P rocess 1
. T ruth an d the R ea so n ab le D o u b t Stan d ard A tt he o uts et , w e ob ser ve that“[t ]her e i s no g ai nsay i ng t hat arri ving at t he truth i s a fundament al goal of ourl egal s y s t em. ” J ames v. I l l i noi s , 493 U
. S. 301, 311 ( 1990) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. I ndeed, “[t ] rut h and j us t i ce ar e [i t s ] ul t i m at e val ues , . . . and t he l aw and t he l egal pr ofes s i on w i l l notbe w or t hyof publ i c r es pectand l oy al t yi f w e al l ow our at t ent i on t o be di ver t ed fr om t hes e goal s . ” St one v. Pow el l , 428 U
. S. 465, 491 n. 30 ( 1976) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m it ted). T he pur s ui tof t rut h i s not , how ever , ungui ded byl aw . A var i et yof cons t i tut i onal and pr ocedur al ru les d ef

ine t he means byw hi ch t rut h i s bes tas cer t ai ned i n a fr ee s oci et y . See Jam es v . Il li n o is, 4 9 3 U
. S
. at 3 1 1
. F o rem o st a m o n g the rules ap p li ca b le t o crim inal ca ses a re-11-

t he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e and t he r equi r ement t hatt he governm entpr ove gui l tbey ond
a r eas onabl e doubt , w hi ch s er ve t rut h by“r educi ng t he ri s k of convi ct i ons r es t i ng on fac tual
er r or . ” I n r e W i ns hi p, 397 U
. S. at 363- 64 ( “I t i s cr i t i cal that t he m or al for ce of t he cr i m i nal l aw notbe di l ut ed bya s t andar d of pr oof t hat l eave s peopl e i n doubtw het heri nnocentm en
are b eing co n d em n ed
. ”). T h u s, w h il e w e d o n o t co n clud e that a d istri ct c o u rt n ec essa ri lyerrs sim p lyb yre f

e re n c in g “ tru th ” in a ju r y i n stru c tio n , w e re c o g n ize th a t itm a yw e ll err if it
s ugges t s ei t hert hata j ur ycan f i nd t he t rut h of a de fenda nt ’ s gui l t bas ed on anyt hi ng l es s t han pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubtort hatanyt hi ng m or e t han the l egal pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e i s nece s s ar yt o r etur n a not - gui l t y ver di ct . See V i ct or v. N ebr as ka, 511 U
. S. at22 (o b se rv in g th a t “tria l co u rts m u st a v o id d e f in in g re a so n a b le d o u b t so a s to lea d th e ju ryto convi cton a l es s ers how i ng t han due pr oces s r equi r es ”) ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. H er nandez , 17 6 F
. 3d 71 9, 72 8 (3d C i r. 19 99 ) ( con cl ud i ng t hat “due p rocess i s sat i sfi ed b yno t hing l ess t han a j ur or ’ s under s t andi ng t hathe or she m ay not vot e t o convi cta def endantbas ed upon a bel i ef thatt he def

endanti s pr obabl ygui l ty ” ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks
om i t t ed) )
. Sham s i deen s ubm i t s t hatt he cha l l enged i ns t ruct i on r aised justs uch an i m per m i s s i bl e s ugges t i on i n t hi s cas e. W e ar e notper s uaded.

2. T he C hal l enged “ T rut h” I ns t ruct i on
a. V i ew ed i n I s ol at i on Focus i ng fi r s tonl yon t he cha l l enged l anguage , w e obse rve t hatan i ns t ruct i on t hat i dent ifi es “the cruci al , har d- cor e ques t i on” forj ur ydel i ber at i on s i m pl yas , “W her e do y ou-12-

f in d th e tru th ,” w o u ld c o n s ti tu te e rro r b e c a u se , b yitse lf , tha t in stru c tio n is in a d e q u a te to
en su re the j ur y ’ s under s t andi ng t hat( 1) t he l aw pr es um es t he t rut h of a de fenda n t’ s i nnocenc e, and ( 2) t he t rut h of a de fenda nt ’ s gui l tm aynotbe found on l es s t han pr oof b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h e q u e stio n f a ils to m a k e c lea r th a t, e v e n if th e ju rystro n g ly
su sp e c ts th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s v e rsio n o f e v e n ts is tru e , itc a n n o t v o te to c o n v ict u n les s it fi nds t hatt he governm enthas actual l ypr oved ea ch el ement of t he cha r ged cr i m e bey ond a
re a so n a b le d o u b t. T h e q u e stio n a lso f a ils to in f

o rm th e ju ryth a t i f th e e v id e n c e is i ns uffi ci entt o per m i t i t i ndepende nt l y t o “fi nd t he t rut h, ” i t s dut y , i n l i ghtof t he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e, i s t o acqui t . Fur t her , t o t he ext ent t he chal l enged i ns t ruct i on i n t hi s cas e w ent
o n to re f e re n c e th e “ triu m p h o f tru th ” a s es se n tial t o ju stic e “ in a n y c a se , w h e th e r it b e c iv il
or cr i m i nal , ” T r i al T r . at371, s uch l anguage , w i t houtm or e, fai l s t o al er tt he j ur yt hata hi gher st and ard of p roof i s dem and ed i n cr i m i nal t han i n civi l cases. S ee U nit ed S t at es v. H ug hes, 3 8 9 F .2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 6 8 ) (re v e rsi n g c o n v ictio n w h e re ju ryc h a rg e e rro n e o u sly
a llo w e d ju ry to u s e c iv il p re p o n d e ra n c e s ta n d a rd in c ri m in a l c a s e ). M in d f u l th a t in stru c tio n s te lli n g ju rie s to “ f in d th e tru th ” re q u ire c o n sid e ra b le
e x p lic a tio n t o e n s u re a ju ry’s u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e ru le o f

c o n s titu tio n a l s u f

f ic ie n c y , a
num berof cour t s have di s cour aged thei rus e. See U ni t ed St at es v. W i l s on, 160 F. 3d 732, 7 4 7 (D
. C
. C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ) (o b serv ing p o tential fo r in co n sist en cy b etw ee n instruction tel li n g jury t o “det er m i ne w her e t he t rut h l i es ” and bur den of pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pi ne, 609 F. 2d 106, 108 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( not i ng t hat i ns t ruct i on t el l i ng j ur y“[y ] ourIn e a c h o f th e se c a se s, th e c o u rt n e v e rth e les s c o n c lu d e d th a t t h e r e w a s n o e rro r in 3 t he j ur ychar ges w hen r evi ew ed i n t hei rent i r et y . See i nfr a at15 ( d iscu ssing ca ses and rea ch ing sam e c o n clus ion ). -13- bas i c t as k i s t o evol ve t he t rut h” coul d “di lut e and ther ebyi m pai rt he cons t i tut i onal
r equi r ement of pr oof bey ond a re as onabl e doubt ”) ; St at e v. Pur nel l , 126 N
. J
. 518, 545, 601 A
. 2 d 1 7 5 , 187- 88 ( 1992) (w arni ng t hat i nst ruct i on sugg est i ng t hat “concep tof reasonab le doubti s a s i m pl e s ear ch fort rut h m ayrun t he r i s k of det r act i ng fr om bot h t he ser i ous nes s of t he deci s i on and t he St at e’ s bur den of pr oof”)
. W e now do l i kew i s e, concl udi ng t hat , t o t he 3
e x ten t a tria l co u rt th in k s it a p p ro p ria te in a c rim in a l ca se to id e n tifyf o r a ju rya sin g le “cruci al , har d- cor e ques t i on, ” t hat ques t i on s houl d be fr amed by r efe r ence nott o a gene r al
s ear ch fort rut h butt o t he r eas onabl e doubts t andar d t hatt he l aw has l ong r ecogni zed a s t he bes tm eans t o achi eve the ul t i m at e goal s of t rut h and j us t i ce. See gene r al l yM oder n Feder al J ur yI ns t ruct i ons : C r i m i nal atI ns t ruct i on 2- 12 ( pr opos i ng, as par t of s y m pat hyi ns t ruct i on, t hat“t he cruci al , har d- core ques t i on t haty ou m us tas k y our s el f as y ou s i ftt hr ough t he
e v id e n c e is: H a s th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e n th e g u ilto f th e d e f e n d a n t b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t?” ). b. V i ew ed i n C ont ext W hat everbur den- of- pr oof conc er ns m i ghtbe i dent i fi ed by r evi ew i ng t he cha l l enged “t rut h” i ns t ruct i on i n t hi s cas e i n i s ol at i on, w e concl ude t hat , w hen t hati ns t ruct i on i s pl ace d in th e c o n tex t o f

th e e n tire c h a rg e , the re w a s n o re a so n a b le li k e lih o o d th a t th e ju ryw o u ld-14-

h a v e th o u g h t itc o u ld re tu rn a g u ilty v e rd ict o n a n y th in g les s th a n p ro o f b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t or t h at i t th o u g h t th at an y thing m o re than the p resu m p ti o n o f in n o ce n ce w as n ec essa ry t o s uppor tacqui t t al
. See V i ct orv. N ebr aska , 511 U
. S. at6 ( “[T] he pr operi nqui r yi s not
w het hert he [r eas onabl e doubt ] i ns t ruct i on ‘ coul d have’ been appl i ed i n an uncons t i tut i onal
m a n n e r, b u t w h e th e r th e re is a re a so n a b le lik e lih o o d th a t th e ju ry d id so a p p ly it. ” (e m p h a sis in o ri g in a l) ). T he l aw r ecogni zes t hati ns t ruct i ons cor r ect l yexpl ai ni ng t he pr es um pt i on of in n o c e n c e a n d th e p r o s e c u tio n ’s b u rd e n o f p ro v in g g u iltb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, par t i cul ar l yw hen gi ven re peat edl y , can r ender a char ge adequat e i n i t s ent i r et y , des pi t e t he i ncl us i on of s om e obj ect i onabl e l anguage . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. C i ak, 102 F. 3d 38, 45 ( 2d C i r . 1996) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B i fi el d, 702 F. 2d 342, 351 ( 2d C i r . 1983)
. I n al l t hr ee of t he
c a se s cite d e a rlier , w h e re in c o u rts c riticiz e d “ tru th ” in stru c tio n s b e c a u se o f th e ir p o ten tial to confus e a j ur y ’ s under s t andi ng of t he rul e of cons t i tut i onal s uffi ci ency , s ee s upr a at13, i tw as
u lt i m at el ydet er m i ned t hatt he r epet i t i on of corr ecti ns t ruct i ons as t o t he governm ent’s
r eas onabl e- doubtbur den w as s uffi ci entt o ens ur e due pr oces s . See U ni t ed St at es v. W i l s on, 1 6 0 F
. 3 d at 74 7 (ho lding “truth” instruction d id n o t con sti tute p lai n erro r w h ere d istri ct co u rt “r epea t edl yand corr ect l yi ns t ruct [ed] t he j ur y t hat t he gover nm ent had t he bur den of pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Pi ne, 609 F. 2d at109 ( aff i r m i n g convi ct i on des pi t e “ t ru t h ” i n s t ru c t i o n “ i n l i g h to f t h e t r i a l j u d g e ’ s f

u l l a n d f o r c e f u l c h a r g e o n t he
r equi r ement of proof bey ond a re as onabl e doubt ”) ; St at e v. Pur nel l , 126 N
. J
. at 544, 601 A
. 2dT he di s t r i ctcour t cor r ect l y i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y t hat t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof 4 w i t h r e s p e c tt o v e n u e w a s a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f t h e e v i d e n c e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o m m y, 506 F. 3d at119. -15- at 186- 87 ( r e

j e c t i n g p l a i n e r r o r c h a l l e n g e t o “ t ru t h ” i n s t ru c t i o n b e c a u s e “ c o n c e p t o f t he S tat e ’s b u rd e n to p rov e g u il t bey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t perm ea tes th e tri al co u rt ’s j u ry ch arg e” (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m it ted)). I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tnotonl ycl ear l yand ac cur at el y i ns t ruct ed t he j ur yon t he
r eas onabl e doubt s t andar d i n s om e det ai l ; i t r efe r ence d t hat s t andar d at l eas ttw ent y - s even t i m es t hr oughout i t s i ns t ruct i ons , fr ami ng vi r tual l y everyj ur yi nqui r y( exce ptforvenue) by
no t i ng t he g ov ernm ent’ s burden o f proo f bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t . In t hese 4
c irc u m sta n c e s, w e re

jec t d e f e n d a n t’s arg u m e n t th a t th e c h a llen g e d “ tru th ” in stru c tio n lik e ly l ed t he j ur y t o t hi nk a gui l t y ver di ct coul d be re tur ned on anyl es s ers t andar d of pr oof. See V i ct orv. N ebr as ka, 511 U
. S. at6. I n u rgin g a di ffe r entconcl us i on, Sham s i deen i ns i s t s t hatt he t ot al char ge w as i ns uffi ci ent t o cur e an e r r oneous “not i on” conve y ed byt he cha l l enged i ns t ruct i on, i
. e. , t hat j us t i ce r equi r ed t he j ur yt o det er m i ne t he “trut h” w i t ho u t reg ard t o t he pr es um pt i on of inn o ce n ce an d the re aso n ab le do u b t st an d ard o f p roo f. A p p ell an t’ s R ep lyB r. at 2
. W e a re
n o t p ersu ad ed. A l t hough t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d advi s e t he j ur yt hatt he “tr i um ph of t r ut h” d e ter m in e d w h e th e r “

ju stic e ” w a s d o n e in a n yc a se , itd id so in th e c o n tex t o f e x p lain in g to t he j ur yt hatevi dence , and nots y m pat hy , m us tgui de i t s del ibera ti o n s. N ow her e di d t he di s t r i ctcour ts ugges t , as Sham side en arg u es , t hatt he j ur ycoul d fi nd t he “trut h” of a-16-

defe ndant ’ s gui l ton l es s t han pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , ort hat , abs ents uch pr oof,
a n yf u rt h e r j u ry f

in d in g o f tr u e in n o c e n c e w a s n e c e s s a ry to a c q u it. T o t he contr ar y , t he t ot al char ge cl ear l y convey ed t o t he j ur yt he l aw ’ s pr es um pt i on of t he “t rut h” of defe ndant s ’ i nnocenc e. T he cour t emphat i cal l y i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y t hati tw as
o b lig e d to a f

f o rd e a c h d e f

end ant th is p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e th ro u g h o u t trial a n d e v e n in to j ur ydel i ber at i ons “unt i l s uch t i m e, i f eve r , [t hat ] y ou, as a jury , are s at i s fi ed t hatt he G over nm enthas pr oven . . . defe ndant gui l t y bey ond a re as onabl e doubt
. ” T r i al T r . at343. F u rth e r, th e c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “th e p re su m p tio n o f in n o c e n c e ” w a s “ a lo n e . . . su f f icie n t” t o s uppor tacqui t t al , s o t hat“[i ] f t he G over nm entfai l s t o s us t ai n i t s bur den, y ou m us t fi nd t he d e f e n d a n t[ ] yo u a re c o n s id e ri n g n o t g u ilty.” Id
. I n l i ghtof t hi s det ai l ed i ns t ruct i on, Sham s i deen doe s not– and ca nnot– cl ai m er r or aki n t o t hati dent i fi ed i n U ni t ed St at es v. D oy l e, w h ere in w e concl uded t hatan i ns t ruct i on t el l i ng t he j ur yt hatt he r eas onabl e doubts t andar d w as “des i gned t o pr ot ect t he i nnocentand nott he gui l t y , ” 130 F
. 3d at533, eff ect i vel yr ender ed t he pr es um pt i on “meani ngl es s , ” i d. at 5 3 8
. N o r i s this cas e a n alog o u s to F ran cis v
. F ran k li n , u p o n w h ic h S h am side en reli es. In Fr anci s , t he j ur yw as pr es ent ed w i t h t w o s hor ti ns t ruct i ons t hatw er e “i r rec o n cil abl e. ” 471 U
. S. at322- 23 ( not i ng t hatj ur yw as i n str u cted b ot h t hat“per s on of s ound m i nd and dis cret i on i s pres um ed to i ntend the nat ural and probab l e con sequen ces of h i s act s” and a l so t hat“per s on w i l l notbe pr es um ed t o act w i th cr i m i nal i nt ent i on”)
. Fur t her , t he cha r ge fa i l ed to in d ica te w h ich o f th e se in stru c tio n s w a s en tit led to “ m o re w e ig h t.” Id . at 3 2 2 . It w a s inA s n o ted, t h e juryd id v o te t o ac q u itd ef en d an t G lov er. 5 -17- th e se c irc u m sta n c e s th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t “[ l]a n g u a g e th a t m e re ly
c o n tra d icts a n d d o e s n o t ex p lain a c o n stitu tio n a llyin f ir m in stru c tio n w ill n o t su f f ice to abs ol ve t he i nfi r m i t y . ” I d. I n t hi s cas e, how ever , w hen t he cour t ’ s br i ef “ t rut h” i ns t ruct i on i s r ead t oget herw i t h i t s m or e det ai l ed and per vas i ve i ns t ruct i ons aboutt he pr es um pt i on of in n o c e n c e a n d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s b u rd e n o f p ro o f , the re is n o c o n tra d ic ti o n . A ju ryw o u ld
r eason ab ly u n d er s t and fr om t he t ot al i t yof t he cha r ge t hati tcoul d notfi nd t he “trut h” of a d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l t u n l e s s a n d u n t i l t h e g o v e r n me n tp r o v e d e v e r ye l e me n to f t h e c h a r g e d c r i me bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. A bs ent s uch evi dence , t he l aw r equi r ed t he j ur yt o pr es um e t he

“ tru th ” o f

d e f e n d a n t’s in n o c e n c e a n d , as a c o n se q u e n c e , to v o te to a c q u it. 5 N o di ffe r entconcl us i on i s w ar r ant ed by t he fac t t hat t he chal l enged “ t rut h” i ns t ruct i on came att he conc l us i o n o f t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j ur ychar ge. A l t hough Sham s i deen poi nt s us t o U ni t ed St at es v. H ughes , a ca s e i n w hi ch w e not ed t he “c ons i der abl e” i m pactof an
er r oneous i ns t ruct i on gi ven att he conc l us i on of a j ur y char ge, 389 F. 2d at 537 ( not i ng t hat
err on eou s i nst ruct i on w as l astt hing j uryheard b efore deli berat i on s) , ou r deci si on t o reverse in th a t c a s e w a s a ls o in f o rm e d b ys e ri o u s p ro s e c u to ri a l m is c o n d u c t, s p e c if ic a lly, a
c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f

th e d e f e n d a n t as “ d o u b lyv icio u s b e c a u se h e d e m a n d e d h is f u ll
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s , ” i d
. a t 5 3 6
. T h i s c a s e i s f u r t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m H u g h e s i n t wo
o th e r re sp e c ts. F irst, b e c a u se th e ju ro rs h e re w e re p ro v id e d w ith a c o p yo f th e f u ll ch a rg e to
r efe r ence duri n g their d el i ber at i ons t her e i s l i t t l e r eas on t o concl ude fr om t he fa ctt hatt he-18-

chal l enged “ t rut h” i ns truct i on w as hear d t ow ar d t he end of t he cour t ’ s or al pr es ent at i on t hat t hi s s i ngl e i ns t ruct ion w o u ld i m pai rt he j ur y ’ s abi l i t yt o r eca l l and appl yt he det ai l ed and
r ei t er at ed cons t i tut i onal s uffi ci ency i ns t ruct i on. Second, t he cha l l enged “ t rut h” i ns t ruct i on
w as not , i n anyevent , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l as tw or d t o t he j ur ybefor e del i ber at i ons . A tt he
re q u e st of d e f

e n se c o u n se l, th e c o u rt p ro v id e d a su p p lem e n tal ins tru c tio n th a t s p e c if ic a lly defi ned t he j ur y ’ s del i ber at i ve t as k byr efe r ence t o t he due pr oces s s t andar d of pr oof: “Y our j ob i s t o det er m i ne w het her t he G over nm ent has pr oven t he gui l tof t he def endantbey ond a
r eas onabl e doubtort o det erm ine that the def endanti s notgui l t y . ” I d. at375. T hi s fi nal i ns t ruct i on, byr ei t er at i ng y etagai n t he cons t i tut i onal s uffi ci encys t andar d emphasi zed t hr oughoutt he cha r ge, s at i s fac t or i l yel i m i nat ed any confus i on as t o t he governm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof t hatm i ghthave been c r eat ed byt he s y m pat hyi ns t ruct i on’ s di s cus s i on of t he t r i um ph
o f tr u th
. A cc o rdin g ly , u p o n rev iew o f th e jurych arg e in its en ti rety , w e c o n clud e that the ju ry
w as s o cl ear l yand tho roughl yi ns t ruct ed as t o t he pr es um pt i on of i nnocenc e and the gover nm ent ’ s bur den of pr oof t hat t her e w as no r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hat t he c h al l enged “t rut h” i ns t ruct i on l ed t he j ur y t o t hi nk i t coul d r etur n a gui l t y ver di cton anyt hi ng l es s t han p ro o f b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t o f e a c h e le m e n t o f

th e c h a rg e d c ri m e . I I I . C oncl usi on T o s um m ar i ze, w hi l e t he cr i m i nal l aw s t r i ves t o as cer t ai n t rut h, t r i al cour t s s houl d not d e f in e a ju ry ’s d e lib e ra tiv e tas k b y re f e re n c e to f

in d in g th e tru th b u t, ra th e r, b yre f e re n c e to-19-

wh e t h e rt h e g o v e r n me n th a s s a t i s f i e d i t s b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h e e l e me n t s o f t h e c h a r g e d c r i me bey ond a r eas onabl e d o u b t . Never t hel es s , w hen w e r evi ew t he cha l l enged “ t rut h” i ns t ruct i on in this ca se in li g h t of

the to tal ch arg e, w e ide n ti fy n o rea so n ab le l ike li h o o d that the ju ry t houghti tcoul d r etur n a gui lt y v erd ic ton anyt hi ng l es s t han t he r equi r ed cons t i tut i onal
s t andar d of pr oof. A F F I R MED .