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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

Defendants.

Case No. CR18-00422-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED 

JURY INSTRUCTIONS RE: 

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

I. MODEL INSTRUCTIONS

1.10

CHARACTER EVIDENCE

Where a defendant has offered evidence of good general truth and veracity, 

honesty and integrity, or character as a law-abiding citizen, you should consider such 

evidence along with all the other evidence in the case.

Evidence of a defendant’s character, inconsistent with those traits of character 

ordinarily involved in the commission of the crime charged, may give rise to a reasonable 

doubt, since you may think it improbable that a person of good character with respect to

those traits would commit such a crime.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Supporting Authorities

Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) Prepared by the Committee on Pattern Jury

Instructions District Judges Association Fifth Circuit, 2019 Edition

Note

Character evidence is admissible in the form of reputation or opinion. Depending 

on the form of character evidence introduced, the appropriate bracketed language 

should be used. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1), 405(a); United States v. John, 309 F.3d 

298 (5th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Wilson, 408 F. App’x 798, 809 (5th Cir. 

2010) (giving instructions to “consider such evidence along with all the other evidence

in the case” and that character evidence “may give rise to a reasonable doubt, since you 

may think it improbable that a person of good character in respect to those traits would 

commit such a crime”); United States v. Callahan, 588 F.2d 1078, 1086 (5th Cir. 1979) 

(approving instruction); United States v. Leigh, 513 F.2d 784, 785–86 (5th Cir. 1975) 

(jury must be instructed that reputation evidence is considered along with – and not 

after – the other evidence in the case, and it cannot be instructed that such evidence is 

only to be used to “tip the scales” or “excuse” the defendant).

“A character instruction is warranted only if the defendant first introduces 

admissible character evidence.” John, 309 F.3d at 303. It is generally not error to refuse

this instruction where character evidence is not “central or crucial.” United States v.

Baytank, 934 F.2d 599, 614 (5th Cir. 1991); see United States v. Hunt, 794 F.2d 1095, 

1099 (5th Cir. 1986) (not abuse of discretion to refuse to give the instruction because 

it did not prevent the jury from considering the character evidence, nor did it seriously

hinder the defendant’s presentation of his defense). However, when the issue of 

character is “necessarily a vital part of [the] defense,” failure to give the instruction 

warrants reversal. John, 309 F.3d at 304–05 (refusing the above instruction was abuse

of discretion “tantamount to impairing [defendant’s] ability to present his defense” 

where character evidence was the central theory of the defense); but see United States

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 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

3

v. Osorio, 288 F. App’x 971, 980 (5th Cir. 2008) (not abuse of discretion to refuse

pattern instruction because character evidence was not crucial to the defense).

Also note that the Supreme Court has held, with respect to evidence of a

defendant’s good character, that “such testimony alone, in some circumstances, may be

enough to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and that in the federal courts a jury in a

proper case should be so instructed.” Michelson v. United States, 69 S. Ct. 213, 219

(1948) (citing Edgington v. United States, 17 S. Ct. 72 (1896)). This has led to 

disagreement among various courts of appeal as to the propriety of “standing alone” 

language in jury instructions. See Spangler v. United States, 108 S. Ct. 2884, 2884–85 

(1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (discussing the disagreement). 

This Circuit’s instruction includes language that good character may give rise to

reasonable doubt. See John, 309 F.3d at 303.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 3 of 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

3

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 4 of 4