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 

MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov 

 nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

CR-18-00223-RCC (DTF) 

GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED 

ADDITIONAL/REVISED JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS 

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby 

submit the attached proposed additional jury instruction for use in this case. 

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of June, 2019. 

 MICHAEL BAILEY 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 5th day of June, 2019, to: 

All ECF participants 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 244 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 2
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 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 

The defendant may raise the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as an affirmative 

defense to the charges in this case. You should consider each count separately as to this 

affirmative defense. 

As to this defense, you must first decide if the defendant’s activities in this case were 

an exercise of his spiritual beliefs, and the criminal charges in this case substantially 

burdened his spiritual beliefs. 

In determining whether the defendant’s activities were an exercise of his spiritual or 

religious beliefs, you may consider the sincerity and full scope of the defendant’s asserted 

beliefs, but you should not consider the reasonableness or validity of the defendant’s beliefs. 

If you determine that the defendant’s conduct in this case was limited to only actions that 

constituted an exercise of his asserted spiritual or religious beliefs, you must find that this 

prosecution imposes a substantial burden on defendant’s exercise of his spiritual or religious

beliefs. If, however, you determine that the defendant’s conduct in this case included 

activities that were not an exercise of his asserted spiritual or religious beliefs, you must 

find that this prosecution does not impose a substantial burden on defendant’s exercise of 

his spiritual or religious beliefs. 

If you determine that the defendant’s activities were an exercise of his spiritual or 

religious beliefs, and the criminal charges in this case substantially burdened his spiritual or 

religious beliefs, then you should consider whether the criminal charges in this case further 

a compelling interest by the least restrictive means. The criminal charges further a 

compelling interest if demanding unbending compliance advances that interest to a 

meaningful degree. The government must also demonstrate that it cannot accommodate the 

defendant’s spiritual or religious beliefs more without furthering its interest less. To do this, 

the government must demonstrate that its preferred means are reasonable and that any other 

proffered options are either not less restrictive or not plausible. 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 244 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 2