1 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N os . 08- 4793/ 08- 4794 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. GL E NN P E T E RS E N, A ppel l ant N o. 08- 4793

_____________ N o. 08- 4794

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TREV OR DO RSETT, A ppel l ant N o. 08- 4794 A ppeal fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t of t he V i r gi n I s l ands ( C r i m . N os . 3- 06- cr - 00029- 001, 3- 06- cr - 00029- 002) D i s t r i ct J udge: H on. J uan R
. Sanchez A r gued: D ece m ber 1, 20092 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , F UE NT E S a n d NYGAA RD , C i r cui tJudge s ( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober 1, 2010) D A R R E N J O H N
- B A PT I SE , E SQ
. ( A r gued) T he Pr ofes s i onal B ui l di ng 5062 For t et s G ade Sui t es 11 & 12 St
. T hom as , U SV I 00802 A t t or ney f

or Appel l ant

, G l enn Pet ers en C H A R L E S S. R U SSE L L , J R
. , E SQ
. ( A r gued) M o o r e , Do d s o n & Ru s s e l l , P
. C. N o. 14A N or r e G ade P. O
. B ox 310 St
. T hom as , U SV I 00804 A tto rn e y s fo r Ap p e lla n t, T

re v o r D o rs e tt P AUL A. M UR P HY, E S Q. A ct i ng U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfor t he D i s t r i ct of t he V i r gi n I s l ands I SH M A E L A
. M E Y E R S, J R
. , E SQ
. ( A r gued) A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 5500 V et er an’ s D r i ve, Sui t e 260 St
. T hom as , U SV I 00802 A t t or neys f

or Appel l ee
OP I NI ONW e re v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to 1 th e g o v e rn m e n t a s v e rd ic t w in n e r. U ni t ed St at es v. G am bone, 3 1 4 F
. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 0 -71 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 3 M c K E E , C hi ef

C i r cui tJudge
. G len n P e ter se n a n d T re v o r D o rse tt ap p e a l th e ir
c o n v ictio n s f

o r p o ss e ss in g m o re th a n 5 0 0 g ra m s o f c o c a in e w ith i nt ent t o di s t r i but e, and for ai di ng and abe t t i ng t hat pos s es s i on. For t he r eas ons t hat fol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he jud gm ent s of convi ct i on. I . F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND. 1 The c i r c um s t anc e s l e a di ng t o the de fe ndant s ’ arr e s t and
co n v ictio n b eg an as V irg in Islan d s P o lice O f f i cers A n g ela Brow n andSteve Gibbo n s w er e m on it oring surveil lance
cam eras in a p o lice statio n o n th e islan do f S t. Jo h n . T h o se
c am e r a s h a db e e n d e p l o ye d i n “ h i g h c r i m e ar e a s ” i n C r u z B ay; and f ed into the polic e s tati on wh er e off ic er s m on it oring them4 c oul d z oom

i n and out

of as c e ne by

m ani pulati ng ajoy s t i c k. The o f f i c e r s c o u l da l s o s w i v e l th e c am e r a s i n ac o m p l e t e 3 60 d eg ree circle, th ereb y

track in g m o v em en ts o f

an yo n e th ey

ch o se to f o cu s o n . W hi l e m on i t or i ng the c am e r a s , Of fi c e r Br ow n
reco g n izedD o r s e t tas sh e saw h im stan d in g o n th e sid ew alk dire ct ly ac ro ss f ro m a post off

ic e. As the off

ic er s obser

ved Do rs ett, Pete rs en m et

him , and the two b egan walking tow ar d

“ Ca p’ s P l a c e , ” al oc a l bar . W he n the two l e ft the bar , the
o f f icers saw th at P etersen h ada drin k in o n e h an dan da p lastic bag in the other. Th e o f f ic er s zoom ed in on the bag and saw that i t co n tain ed abr i c k- s ha

pe d obje c t

that a ppe ar e d t o be he avy . As Pe t e r s e n and Dor s e tt c ont i nue d wa l ki ng down the street to th e F irst B an kB u ild in g , P e t e rsen p assedth e b ag to Do rs ett. Do rs ett kept the bag until they re ac hed a short c ut that l e d t o the Jul i us E. Spr auve Sc hool
. The y th e n m ove d out of5 cam era ran g e w h en th ey

to o kth at sh o rt cu t. Off icers Br own and Gi bbons the n l e ft the s t at i on and
wa l ke d t owar ds the s c hool
. As the y di d, the y s aw Dor s e tt

and P etersen g et in to a red M itsub ish i car an ddriv e p ast th e o f f icers. Th e off ic er s then ra n b ac kto the s tati on , got into a polic e c ar , and a t t e m pted to fo ll ow Do rs ett andPete rs en. As they atte m pted to pu rs ue the Mit subishi, Of fice r Brown ra dioed o ther of fice rs to b e o n th e lo o k o u t f

o r D o rsett an dP etersen in th e redcar. Of fice r Em il e Proct or was heading towards th e red Mits ub is hi wh en he sa w it fail to st op at

a s top sign. Of

fice r Pr oc t or r a di oe d t o the othe r

offi c e r s , i nform e d the m

of wha t he
s aw, and t ol d the m

that he wa s goi ng t o m ake atr a ffi c s t op. W hi l e att e m

pt i ng t o c at c h up t o the Mi t s ubi s hi , Offi c e r Pr oc t or
saw D o rsett th ro w a clear p lastic b ag th at co n tain eda w h ite substance o u t throug h the driver ’s si de wind ow into an op en gu tt er . A fter

the c le ar plas ti c bag was throw n into the gu tt er ,6 th e M itsub ish i tu rn ed in to a street th at O f f icer P ro cto r kn ew to be a dead end and Proctor st op ped at the entr ance of the s tr ee t to b lo ckth e M itsub ish i’s ex it. Wh ile d o in g th is, h e w as ab le to ob se rve the cl ear pla st ic bag that had been thrown from the c ar into the gutte r. Th e Mit subishi m ade a U-turn and then stopp ed i n f r o n t o f O f f i c e r P r o c t o r ’ s p o l i c e c ar

at ab o u t th e s ame t i me that Of fice rs Brow n andGib b o ns were ar ri ving at the s ce ne. T h ey p ark edth eir car b eh in dth e M itsub ish i. Offi c e r Pr oc t or or de r e d Dor s e tt and Pe t e r s e n out of the
car a s Off

ic er Denn is Vanter

po ol ar ri ved andwas i nf

orm ed
about the c l e ar pl a s t i c ba g that

wa s s t i l l i n the gutt e r . As he
re tr ie ved the bag, Vanterpool ob se rved a rock-li ke substance i ns i de
. He ope ne d the ba g and s m e l l e d what he be l i e ve d t o be crackco cain e an d th en in f o rm edth e o th er o f

f icers o f h is disc ov er y . Off ic er s Proct or and V ante rp oo l t hen f ri sked Pete rs en and D orse tt . While conducti ng the pat -dow ns, Off ic er7 Pr oc t or not i c e d that

both Dor s e tt

and Pe t e r s e n s m e l led of
m ar i juana , and Offi c e r

Vant e r po o lr e c o v e r e d

a b a g of m ar i

juana f ro m P etersen ’s p an ts p o ck et. Af t e r Do r s e tt andPe t e r s e nw e r e s e c ur e d , Of fi c e r s Br ow n
an d Gi bbons l ooke d i ns i de the Mi t s ubi s hi and i mm e di at e ly
no ti ce d the od or of

m ar ijuana com ing f

rom insi de. As Off

ic er Brow n con ti nu ed his vis ual i nspect ion, he n o ti ce d w hat app eare d to b e the plas ti c bag that he had p re viou sl y

se en D o rsett an dP etersen carryin g as th ey w a l k e dd o w n th e street. Brow n inq uire d abo ut the bag , b u t b oth D orse tt and P et er se n denied any

kn ow le dg e of it
. Of

fice r Brown re tr ie ved the bag
an dsaw th at it co n tain edb rick -lik e o b j ects co v ered b y

a w h ite po wd er y substance. Do rs ett an d Pete rs en were t hen arre st ed
an dch arg edw ith p o ssessio n o f aco n tro lledsub stan ce w ith inte nt to dist

ri bu te . I I . DI STRI CT COURT PROCEEDI NGS8 On J anuary 15, 2006 , a gr and j ur y r et ur ned a t w o count i ndi ct m ent char gi ng bot h D or s et t and Pet er s en w i t h pos s es s i ng
coca i ne bas e ( C ount O ne) and coc ai ne hy dr ochl or i de ( C ount T w o ) w ith in ten t to d istri b u te w ith in 1 0 0 0 f e e t o f a p u b lic
s chool , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. §§ 841( a) and 860, as w el l as ai di ng and abe t t i ng eac h ot her and unknow n ot her s i n t he
comm i s s i on of t hos e off ens es , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 2. A ft er t he d i st ri ct c o u rt den i ed thei r m oti on s t o sup press phy s i cal evi dence , t heyp roc ee ded t o t r i al befor e a j ur y . T he gover nm ent ’ s evi dence at t r i al i ncl uded t he t es t imony of E ric J or dan, a for e ns i c c he m i s t e m pl oy e d by the Uni t e d St at e s Dr

ug Enfor c e m e nt

Age nc y . He t e s t i fi e d that the br i c ks the defend ants were carr

ying c on ta ined cocai ne hy drochloride that h ad a g ro ss w eig h t o f

n early o n e an da h alf

k ilo g ram s (1 ,3 6 7 .9 gram s) . Off

ic er Mark Jose ph , a

Virgin Is land s Polic e De partm e nt

de t e c t i ve who i s a s s i gne d t o the Dr ug Enfor c e m e nt9 Task Fo rc e, te st ifie d that the drug s were packaged i n a m anner that was not consis te nt with pers on al use. A t t he co n clusi on of t hat t r i al , t he di s t r i ct cour t gr ant ed t he def endant s ’ m ot i ons for j udgm ent of acqui t t al and di s m i s s ed C ount O ne of t he i ndi ct m ent . T he j ur y coul d not r eac h a ver di ct on C ount T w o and a mi s t r i al w as decl ar ed. A t t he ens ui ng r et r i al , bot h defe ndant s w er e convi ct ed on t he char ges cont ai ned i n C ount T w o and s ent enced to l engt hy pri son ter m s aft er t he co urt den i ed the i r post t ri al m oti on s. T hes e appe al s fol l ow ed.

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON D o rse tt arg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in d e n y in g h is
su p p re ss io n m o tio n , tha t th e re w a s in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to
su p p o rt h is c o n v ictio n , an d th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in
r efus i ng t o gi ve hi s pr offe r ed j ur y i ns t r uct i on on ai di ng and abet t i ng. Pet er s en al s o chal l enges t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deni al ofPet er s en does not ar gue t hat t he s ei zur e of mar i j uana 2 f ro m h is p a n ts p o c k e t v io la te d th e “ p la in f e e l” d o c tr in e . See U ni t ed St at es v. Y

am ba , 506 F. 3d 251, 256- 60 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( appl y i ng t he “pl ai n fee l ” doct r i ne es t abl i s hed i n M i nnes ot a v. D i cke rs on , 5 0 8 U
. S
. 3 6 6 (19 9 3 )). 10 h is su p p ression m o ti o n . H e a lso c o n tend s tha t t h e d ist ri ct co u rt
err ed in su st ai ning his con vict i on for a l esser -i ncluded off ense beca us e no l es s er i ncl uded off ens e i ns t r uct i on w as gi ven t o t he ju ry. T h e d e f

e n d a n ts’ c h a llen g e to th e d e n ial o f th e ir
su p p r e s sio n m o tio n s d o e s n o t w a rra n t d isc u ss io n . T h e ir o n ly
ar gum ent i n su p p or t of t hat cl ai m i s t hat al l of t he evi dence
s ei zed by t he O ffi cer s s houl d have been s uppr es s ed bec aus e t he evi dence es t abl i s hed t hat O ffi cerPr oct or di d not s ee t he M i t subis hi r un a st op si gn . T hu s, according t o the defen dan t s, the traf fic stop v iolated th eir F o u rt h A m en d m en t r igh ts. In 2 U ni t ed St at es v. Mos l ey , 454 F. 3d 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e not ed t hat “t he Supr eme C our t [has ] es t abl i s hed a br i ght
- l i ne r ul e t hat11 any t echni cal vi ol at i on of a t r aff i c code l egi t i m i zes a s t op, even i f t he sto p is m er el y pr et ext for an i nves t i gat i on of s om e ot her
cr i m e. ” Id
. at 252 ( ci t i ng W hr en v. U

ni t ed St at es , 517 U
. S. 806 (1 9 9 6 ))
. Pet er s en and D or s et t cont end t hat s ur vei l l ance vi deot ape evi dence es t abl i s hed t hat O ffi cerPr oct or di d not s ee t hei r car
r un a s t op s i gn. H ow ever , O ffi cer Pr oct or cl ear l y t es t i fi ed t hat h e d id see the M it su b ishi run a sto p sign , an d the d ist ri ct co u rt
cr edi t ed t he O ffi cer ’ s t es t i m onyand hel d t hat t he t r aff i c s t op
w a s p ro p e r. “I t is n o t f o r u s to w e ig h th e e v id e n c e o r to det er m i ne t he cr edi bi l i t y of w i t nes s es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 187 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. T hus , t he di s t r i ct cour t di d not er r i n deny i ng t he m oti on s t o sup press . D or s et t ’ s ar gum ent t hat t her e w as i nsu ff ic i ent evi dence to su p p o rt h is c o n v ict ion d o es n o t m erit m u ch d iscu ssion eit h er.12 O ff icer B r ow n t es t i fi ed t hat s he s aw D or s et t handl i ng t he bag cont ai ni ng t he coc ai ne, and s urve i l l ance vi deot ape e s t abl i s hed th a t D o rse tt h a d a c tu a l p o ss e ss io n o f th e b a g . T h a t sa m e p las tic bag w as found i n t he vehi cl e j us t a fe w m i nut es l at er dur i ng t he
s t op. T hi s i s m o re tha n s uffi ci ent t o s us t ai n t he convi ct i on for p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . W e al s o r ej ectbot h appel l ant s ’ chal l enges t o t he di s t r i ct
co u rt ’s j u ryinstruction s , a lt h o u g h tho se c lai m s req u ir e m o re d is c u s s io n . C ou nt Tw o o f t he indi ct m ent s t at es: On or abou t Dec em

ber 5, 200 3, at St
. J o h n , i n th e D i s tr i c t o f the V irg in Islan d s, th e d ef en d an t s, GLENN PET E R S E N a n d TREVOR DORSETT whi l e a i di ng and abe tt ing one anothe r , and o th e r s u n kn o w n t o th e g r an dj u ry, k n o w in g ly a nd i nt e nt i ona lly p o ssessedw ith in ten t to d istrib u te a Schedule I I nar coti c c on tr olle d s ubs t an ce, that

i s , m or e than fi ve13 hu ndr e d ( 50 0) gr am s of

am i xt ur e a nd s ub stan ce co n t a i ni ng a d e t e c t ab l e am o u n t

o f c o c a i ne h ydro ch lo rid e, in v io latio n o f T itle 21, Uni t e d St at e s C o de , Se c t i on 8 4 1 (a), w ith in 1 0 0 0 f

eet o f a p ub lic s c hool , that

i s , the Jul i us Spr auve S ch o o l. All in violat ion of Tit le 21 , Unite d Stat es Co de, §§§ 8 41 (a ), 841( b) ( 1) ( B) ( i i i ) , 860 and Ti t l e 18, U n itedS tates C o d e § 2
. As no te d at the ou ts et , Dorse tt and P et er se n w er e r e- tr ie d
o n C o u n t T w o af

ter th eir f irst trial resu ltedin a m istrial b ecau se the jur y co u ld n ot agre e on a verdict . The distri ct court a sked the se co ndju ry

to com plet e s peci al verdic t form s which
c ont a i ne d thr e e que s t i ons . Thos e que s t i ons we r e id ent i c a l for
ea ch defend ant e xcept f

or the n am e o n the fo rm . The firs t jury in terro g ato ry

w as: Do you u n ani m ous l y

fi nd that the Gove rnm e nt

ha s pr ove n be yond a r e a s onabl e do u

b t t h at the de fe ndant14 [ in d iv id u al d ef

en d an t’ s n am e] k nowi ngl y a nd i nt en tio n ally pos s e s s e d wi th i nt e nt

t o di s tr i bute am i xt ur e or s ubs t anc e c ont a i ni ng coca ine? T h e j u ry an sw ered : “Y es,” o n t h e v erd ict slip s f o r b o th d ef en d an ts. T h e seco n din terro g ato ry w as: Do you u n ani m ous l y

fi nd that the Gove rnm e nt

ha s pr ove n be yond a r e a s ona b l e d o ubt that the de fe ndant [ind ividual defendant’s nam e] was wi thi n o ne tho us andfe e t of a s c hool whe n he knowi ngl y and i nt e nt i ona l l y

pos s e s s e d wi th i nt e nt to dist ri bu te a m ixture or substance contai ning coca ine? O n b o th d ef

en d an ts’ v erd ict f

o rm s, th e j u ry

an sw ered : “N o .” T h e th irdin terro g ato ry

w as: Do yo uf i n dth at th e G o v e rn m e nt h as p ro v en b e yo n da reaso n ab le do ub t that the qu anti ty

of a m ixture or s ubs t anc e c ont a i ni n g c oc a i ne that th e defendant [ind ividual d e f e n d an t ’ s n am e ] kn o w i n g l y andDor s e tt m ove d t o joi n Pe t e r s e n’ s m ot i on. 3 15 i nt e nt i ona l l y pos s e s s e d wi th i nt e nt t o di s tr i but e wa s 500 gr am s or m ore? O n b o th d ef

en d a n ts’ v erd ict f

o rm s, th e j u ry

an sw ered : “Y es.” Accordingly , Pet er se n and D o rs ett wer e a cquitt ed of char ges
r e l at e d t o pos s e s s i ng m or e than 500 gr am s c oc a i ne wi th i nt e nt t o d i s tr i bu t e wi thi n 1 00 0 f e e t of as c ho ol y ar d i n vi ol at i onof § 860( a ) , but

the y we r e both c onvi c t e d of pos s e s s i on wi th i nt e nt to dist ri bu te in violat ion o f § 84 1(a) (1).

A. Pe t e r s e n. Fol l o w in g tr i a l , Pe t e r s e n m ove d for ajudgm e nt

of
ac qu itta l, or in the al te rnat ive, fo r a new tri al
. He ar gu ed that 3
s i nc e he wa s c har ge d wi th as i ngl e c ount of avi o lat i on of the
sc ho oly ar d statute , 2 1 U .S.C. § 86 0, the jury ’s verdic t
c ons t i t ut e d an a c qui tt a l be c aus e the gove rnm e nt fa i l e d t o pr ove
an es se ntia l el em ent of the cr im e char ged. He f u rt h erargu ed16 that conv ic ti on of

po ss essi on with inte nt to dist ri bu te was inapprop ri at e bec ause the d is tr ic t cou rt never instr ucte d the ju ry th at it co u ldco n v ict h im

o f a lesser-in clu d edo f

f en se. Th e dis tr ic t c ou rt

deni e d P e t e r s e n’ s m otion andrule d that P etersen w as p ro p erly

co n v ictedo f

th e lesser-in clu d edo f

f en se
o f p o ssessio n w ith in ten t to d eliv er ev en th o u g h th e co u rt d id not gi ve al e s s e r - i nc l ude d offe ns e c har ge t o the jury . Pe t e r s on
no w cla im s that was er

ror. We disa gree . Pe t e r s e n’ s c l a i m

of e rr or is as i r oni c a s i t

i s m i s gui de d. H e n o t o n ly

f ailedto requ est a lesser-in clu d edo f f en se ch arg e in the dis tr ic t c ou rt

and f ai le d to o bj ec t to th e c harge that was g iv en ; du rin g th e ch arg e co n f eren ce, P etersen sp ecif

ically decl ined a l es se r- incl ud ed of fense char ge that the c ou rt of fered t o gi ve . Thus , we r e vi e w the i ns tr uc t i on that

wa s gi ve n for p lain erro r. Uni te d States v . Gordon , 290 F. 3d 539, 543- 44 ( 3dO rdin aril y , “[ i] f th e p artyclaim ing erro r i n the ju ry 4 i ns t r uct i ons di d not m ake a t i m el y obj ect i on, w e r evi ew for p lai n erro r an d w e w il l r ev erse o n lyif t h e tri al co u rt c o m m itt e d e rro r th a t w a s f u n d a m e n tal a n d h ig h lyp re ju d icia l, su c h th a t th e in stru c tio n f a iled to p ro v id e th e ju ry w ith adequa t e gui dance and t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s r efus al t o cons i der t he i s s ue w oul d r es ul t i n a mi s car r i age of j us t i ce. ” A l exande r v. R iga , 2 0 8 F .3 d 4 1 9 , 4 2 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. B obb , 4 7 1 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 5 0 0 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H ow ever , t he s i t uat i on her e t r ans cends m er e w ai ver or for fei t ur e of a l egal ar gum ent beca us e, as not ed above , P eterso n n o t on lyfa il ed to o b ject t o the d ist ri ct co u rt ’s j u ry char ge, he ac t ual l y r efus ed t he cour t ’ s offe r t o gi ve t he l es s er i ncl uded off

ens e cha r ge t hat he now s ay s s houl d have be en gi ven. T he s i t uat i on i s t her efor e more aki n t o an es t oppel t han a w ai ver or for fei t ur e. A l t hough i t can c l ear l y be ar gued th a t h e h a s lo st a n y rig h t to n o w c laim th a t th e c o u rt e rre d in n o t g i v i n g t h e c h a r g e h e t o l d t h e c o u r t h e d i d n o t wa n t , we bel i eve t hat , gi ven t he ver y uni que ci r cumst ance s her e, r evi ew f o r p lain e rro r is a p p ro p ria te. T h e a lleg e d e rro r o c c u rre d o n ly aft ert he def

endantw as gr ant ed j udgm ent of ac qui t t al on s i mi l a r c h a r g e s a t h i s f

i r s t t r i a l , a n d h i s a t t a c k o n t h e o u t c o me o f th e se c o n d trial is s u c h th a t ig n o rin g it n o w c o u ld “s er i ous l y aff

ect[] t he .
. . publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs [, ] ” U

ni t ed St at es v. H

of f eck er , 530 F. 3d 137, 181 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( ci t i ng U nit ed S t ates v. W

i se , 515 F. 3d 207, 214 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ) , as i t m ayappea r t hat he has been s ent ence d for a cr i m e he w as acqui t t ed of. W e ca ut i on, (c o n tin u e d ...) 17 Cir. 20 01 ). 4(
. . . cont i nued) 4 how ever , t hat ci r cumst ance s ar e i ndeed r ar e t hat w i l l caus e us to ex erc ise o u r discre ti o n to rev iew a c lai m that a tri al co u rt er r ed i n not gi vi ng a j ur y char ge t hat w as offe r ed, but r efus ed b y th e d e f

e n d a n t. M or eover , “[i ] t i s w el l
- s et t l ed t hat ar gum ent s as s er t ed for t he fi r s t t i m e on appe al ar e dee m ed t o be w ai ved and cons equent l y ar e not s us cept i bl e t o r evi ew i n t hi s C our t abs ent exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” U nit ed S t ates v. R ose , 538 F. 3d 175, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed; al t er nat i on i n or i gi nal )
. E xcept i onal ci r cumst ance s e x is t w h e re , in ter a lia , “t he publ i c i nt er es t r equi r es t hat t he new i s s ue be he ar d on appea l
. ” F l eck v. K D I Syl van P oo l

s, I nc. , 981 F. 2d 107, 116 ( 3d C i r . 1992)
. Si nce w e have not y et addr es s ed t he i s s ue r ai s ed byPet er s en, t her e i s an i ns t i t ut i onal cons i der at i on t hat can be vi ew ed as “an e xcept i onal ci rcum st ance.” W e t herefore beli eve that “t he p ub l i c i nter est r equi r es t hat t he new i s s ue be he ar d on appea l
. ” 18 U n d er p lain erro r rev iew , relief is n o t w arran tedu n less ther e has been an err or that is cl ear andaffects substantia l rig h ts. Jones v . Unite d States , 527 U. S. 373, 389 ( 1999)
. The
e rr or m us t be “ an e gr e gi ous e rr or

or am ani fe s t m i s c arr i a ge of ju st ic e. ” Un ited States v. Pric e , 76 F .3d 5 26 , 5 3 0 (3 d C ir
. 19 96) ( i nt e rna l qu ot at i onm arks andc i t at i onom i tt e d)
. As we19 h av e su g g estedab o v e, ev en if all o f th ese p rerequ isites are m et,
w e w ill n o t ex ercise o u r d iscretio n to rev erse a c a s e f o r p lain
e rr o r u n l e s s th e e rr o r “ s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t [ s ] th e f

a i rn e s s , i n t e g r i ty,
or public re pu tati on of

ju dici al proceedi ng s. ” Jones , 527 U. S.
a t 389. ( i n t e rn a l qu o t at i o n m ark s an dc i t at i o n o m i tt e d, al te rati on in original ). W e r e vi e w jury i ns tr

uc t i ons a s a whol e and i n l i ght of the
e vi de nc e . W he n s o vi e we d, jury i ns tr uc t i ons m us t “ fa i r l y and adequatel y

subm it [] the is sues in the ca se to the jury .” Un ites Sta tes v. H

a rt , 273 F.3d36 3, 37 3 (3dCir. 20 01 ) ( in te rn al qu otat ion m ar

ks and cit at ion o m itte d). Nevert hele ss , a dist ri ct court has broad d is cr et ion in f as hion ing a ju ry

char ge as long as i t c omm uni c at e s “ the s ub stanc e of the l aw” s o the jury i s not
m isledo r co n f

u sed
. U n ited Sta tes v. M

cG ill , 964 F. 2d 222, 235 (3d C ir . 199 2).20 T h e statu te at issu e h ere, 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 6 0 (a), p ro v id es, in relev an t p art, as f

o llo w s: Any pe r son who vi ol at e s s e c t i on 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f

th i s t i t l e . . . by di s tr i but i ng, pos s e s s i ng wi th i nt e nt t o di stri but e , or

m anufa c t

ur i ng a c o ntr ol l e d s ubs t anc e i n or on, or wi th i n o n e th o u s an df

e e t o f , the real p ro p erty co m

p risin g a p ub lic o r p riv ate elem en tary , v o catio n al, or s e c ondary

s c hool , or

apubl i c or p riv ate co lleg e, j u n io r co lleg e . . . [i s ] s ubje c t

t o ( 1) twi c e the m axim u m pu nishm ent a

utho ri ze d by sec t i on 841( b) of thi s t i t l e ; and ( 2) at l e a s t tw i c e an y

t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e author i z e d by sectio n 8 4 1 o f

th is title f

o r a f irst of fense. S ectio n 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) p ro v id es, inrelev an t p art: E x cep t as au th o rizedb y th is s ubc ha pt e r , i t s ha l l be unl awful for a ny pe r s on kn owi ngl y or i nt e nt i ona l l y

–21 ( 1) t o m anufa c t

ur e , d i s tr i but e , or d isp en se, o r p o ssess w ith in ten t to man u f a c t u r e, d istrib ute, o r d isp en se a co n tro lledsub stan ce . . . Sect ion 8 60 is ther efore a s ub st anti ve of fense that
r e qui r e s pr oof of an e l e m e nt that i s not i nc l ude d i n § 841- pr oof that the dis tr ibution, po ss es si on or m anuf ac turi ng occurred
w ith in 1 0 0 0 f

eet o f a sch o o ly ard
. U

n ited Sta tes v. M

cQ u ilkin , 7 8 F .3 d1 0 5 , 1 0 8 -0 9 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 6 ). Ac c or di ngl y , § 841( a ) ( 1) i s a l e s s e r - i nc l ude d offe ns e of § 8 6 0 (a). Uni te d States v . J ac k s on , 443 F.3d 29 3, 29 5 (3dCir. 2 0 0 6 ); see a lso id . at 301 (“ Beca use a conv ic ti on un der § 86 0(a) onl y r e qui r e s afi ndi ng of one a ddi t i ona l e l e m e nt , the 1, 000- foot pr oxi m i ty t o as c hool , we a gr e e that the pos s e s s i on o f

c oc a i ne b ase w ith th e in ten t to d istrib u te u n d er 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) is a lesser-in clu d edo f

f en se o f p o ssessio n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te22 w ith in 1 ,0 0 0 f

eet o f a sch o o l u n d er 2 1 U .S
. C
. § 8 6 0 ( a ).”). Ac c or di ngly , a

jury c ann ot fi ndade fe nd ant

gu i l ty of § 86 0(a) withou t fir st

concluding beyon d a re as on able do ub t t hat the gov er nm ent has es ta

blis hed ever

y el em ent required und er

§ 8 4 1 (a)(1 ). Id .; see a lso U n ited Sta tes v. B eltz , 385 F. 3d 1158, 1162 ( 8th Ci r . 2004) ( “ I n fa c t one of the s t at

ut ory e l e m e nt s of § 8 6 0 requ ires th at § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ) h av e b een v io lated .”). F ed eral Ru le o f

C rim in al P ro cedu re 3 1 (c) p ro v id es, in relev an t p art, as f

o llo w s: “L esser O f

f en se o r A ttem

p t. A d ef en d an t m ay

b e f o u n dg u ilty

o f
. . . (1 ) an o f

f en se n ecessarily i nc l ude d i n the offe ns e c har ge d. ” I n Schm uck v . Unite d States , 4 8 9 U .S
. 7 0 5 , 7 1 6 (1 9 8 9 ), th e S up rem e C o u rt ex p lain edth at:

“ one offe ns e i s not

‘ ne c e s s ar i l y

i nc l ude d’ i n anothe r

unl e s s the
e l e m e nt s of the l e s s e r offe ns e ar e a s ubs e t of the e l e m e nt s of the
c har ge d offe ns e . W he r e the l e s s e r offe ns e r e qui r e s an e l e m e nt23 no t r equire d f

or the gre at er

of fense, no inst

ruct ion is t o b e given
un der Rule 31(c). ” The go v e rnm e nt

c ont e nds that

ne i the r Rul e 31( c ) nor Suprem e Cou rt

prec edent e xp li ci tl y

re q u ir es a l es se r- incl ud ed offe ns e c har ge i f the i ns tr uc t i on that

i s gi ve n in clu de s the g re a t e r o f

f en se. H o w ev er, Keeblev. Un ited States , 412 U. S. 2 0 5 (1 9 7 3 ), seem s, at f

irst b lu sh , to su g g est o th erw ise. T h ere, a N ativ e A m erican w as ch arg ed w ith assau lt w ith inte nt to comm it

se ri ou s bod il y inju ry

un der the Majo r Cri m es Ac t of 18 85
. Th at

Ac t autho r i z e d the fe de r a l pr os e c ut i on of a N ativ e A m erican ch arg ed w ith co mm ittin g certain sp ecif ically
en u m eratedo f

f en ses o n a R eserv atio n . A ssau lt w ith in ten t to
co mm it serio u s b o d ily

in j u ry w as o n e o f

th e sp ecif

ically
en u m eratedo f

f en ses. K eeb le w a s ch arg edw ith assau lt w ith i nt e nt t o c omm i t

s e r i ous bodi l y

i njury a ft e r ge tt i ng i nt o afi ght24 wi th h i s br othe r - i n- l aw. A t th e clo se o f h is trial, K eeb le ask ed th e d istrict co u rt to in stru ct th e j u ry th at it co u ld co n v ict h im o f sim p le a s s au lt. Th e dis tr ic t c ou rt

re fu se d beca

use s im ple a ss ault

is no t an
o f f e n s e s p e c i f

i c a l l y e n u m e r at e di n th e A c t . A c c o r d i n g l y, Keeble could n ot have been tri ed fo r s im ple a ss ault

in federal
c ourt . The di s tr i c t

c ourt wa s a ffi rm e d on di r e c t

a ppe a l , and the Supr e m e Court

gr ant e d certio ra ri l i m i t e d t o “ the que s t i on of the
va l i di ty of de nyi ng the r e que s t e d i ns tr uc t i on. ” 412 U. S. at

207. T h e S up rem e C o u rt h eldth at a lesser i n c lu d edo f f en se char ge shou ld have been g iv en , i f sup po rt ed by the e vidence. Id . at 2 1 4 . T h e C o u rt ex p lain ed :

Alth ou gh the l es se r i ncluded of fense doctri ne developed at c om m on l a w t o a s s i s t t he pr os e c ut i on i n c a s es whe r e the e v i d e n c e f

a i l e dt o e s t ab l i s h s o me25 e l e m en t o f

th e o f f en se o rig in ally ch arg ed , it is n o w b eyo n d disp u te t hat t he defen dant

i s e nt i t le d to an ins truc t i on on a les s e r

i nc lud ed o ffen se if th e evide n ce w o u ld p erm it a ju ry ra tio n a lly to fin d h im gui l t yo f t h e les s e r o f f e n s e a nd acqu it him o f t he greate r . Id . at 2 0 8 (e mphasi s a dd ed; foo tnote om itte d). The Co urt co n tin u ed : [I ]f th e pr os e c ut i on ha s not

estab lish edb eyo n da rea s o n ab le d o ub t ev ery elem en t o f th e o f f en se ch arg ed , an dif

n o lesser o f

f en se i ns tr uc t i oni s of

fe r e d, the jury m u st, as a th eo retical m atter, retu rn a v e rdi c t of ac qui t tal
. Id . at 2 1 2 (em

p h asis ad d ed ). Al though K

eeb le m ight appear

to supp ort Pet er se n’s
ar gum e n t, the Court ’ s s t at e m e nt s m us t be unde r s t ood i n the pr ope r c onte xt . I n K

eeb le , the Court

wa s c onc e rne d wi th the dang er that the defendant may

be fo un d g uilt

y of the c harged26 offe ns e whe n the gove rnm e nt ha s pr ove n onl y the e l e m e nt s of the l e s s e r i nc l ude d offe ns e . The Court e xpl a i ne d: [A ] d efendant is enti tl ed to a l es se r offe ns e i ns tr

uc t i on i n thi s c ont ext or any othe r – pr e c i s e l y

be c aus e he s houl d not be e xpos e d to the s ub s t ant i a l r i s k that

the jury ’s p r a c t i c e w i l l d i v e r g e f

r o m th e o ry. W he r e o n e o f

th e e l e m e n t s o f

the o f f en se ch arg edrem ain s in d o ub t, b u t th e d ef

en d an t i s p lain ly

g u ilty o f so m e o f f en se, th e j u ry

is lik ely t o r e s ol ve its doubt s i n favor of c onvi c t i on. K eeb le , 4 1 2 U .S . at 2 1 2 -1 3
. Th at dang er is abse nt h er e b ec ause the s peci al verdic t form e na bl e d the jury

t o m ake as e par at e fi nd i ng a s t o e a ch
e l e m e nt of the c har ge s a ga i ns t

Pe t e r s e n, and the y

di d. Thus , the
m and at e of K

eeb le d o e s n o t

a p p l y. Al though we have not pr e vi ous l y de c i de d i f ade fe ndant27 can b e c on vict ed of

a l esser i ncluded o ff

ense wh er e no such inst ruct ion was g iven to the j ury , w e h ave h el d that a tri al court
can en ter a co n v ictio n o n a lesser in clu d edo f f en se un d er certain cond it ions withou t violati ng the Dou ble J eopardy Clause
. Al though Gov ’ t of t

he Vi r gi n I s lands v . J

os i ah , 641 F. 2d 1103 ( 3dCi r . 19 81 ) , di d n ot

i nv ol ve the s pe c i fi c i s s ue r a i s e d h e r e , we d idex p lain : A j ury ’s find ing o n al l e le m ents of the gre at er o f f en se is n ecessar ily

a f in d in g o f g u ilt o n all el em ents of

the l es ser off

ense , s ince a l es se r in clu d edo f

f en se co n sists o f so m e o f

th e elem en ts of the gr e at e r

offe ns e and doe s not

r e qui r e the proo f o f any

el em en t n ot pres ent i n the greate r o f f en se. A t r i a l co u rt th eref o re h as au th o rity

to ente r a ju dg m ent of con vict ion o n a l es se r i nc l uded o f

fe ns e whe n i t

fi nds that

an e l e m e nt excl usive t o t h e gre at er

of fense i s not supp orte d by e vid en ce su f

f icien t to su stain th e j u ry ’s f in d ing o f g u ilt o n th e g reater o f

f en se. Id . at 1 1 0 8 (citatio n s o m itted ).28 O t her ci r c u i tc o u r t s o f

a p peal have a ddr es s ed t he ques t i on of w het her an appe l l at e cour t can r emand for ent r yof j udgm ent
on a l esser i ncluded off en se w h e re no l esser i ncluded off ense char ge w as gi ven af

t er det er m i ni ng t hat ther e i s i ns uffi ci ent
e v id e n c e to c o n v ict o n th e g re a ter o f f e n se . S o m e o f th e se c o u rts
o f a p p e a ls h a v e d e c lin e d o r h e sita ted to re d u c e a c o n v ictio n to a l es s er inclu ded off

ens e w hen t he di s t r i ct cour t di d not gi ve a le s s e r in c lu d e d o f

f e n s e in s tr u c tio n . See U

nit ed S t ates v. D hinsa , 2 4 3 F
. 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 7 6
- 7 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( r e f u s i n g t o af

f i r m a convi ct i on for coer ci on bas ed upon t he gover nm ent ’ s r eas oni ng t hat t he ev i den ce est abli shed a l esser i ncluded off ense, becau se t he d i st ri ct cou rt d id no t give a l esser i ncluded off ense in stru c tio n ); U

ni t ed St at es v. D i nkane , 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 8 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (re q u irin g a sh o w in g th a t th e d istric t co u rt e x p licitly i ns t r uct ed t he j ur y t hat i t coul d convi ct a d ef endantof l es s er29 i ncl uded offe ns e and an i ns t r uct i on s et t i ng for t h t he el ement s of th e lesser i nclude d o f

f e n se ); U ni t ed St at es v. V

as quez - C han , 978 F. 2d 546, 554 ( 9t h C i r . 1992) ( s ame) , over r ul ed o n ot her g r o u n d s b y U

n itedS ta tes v . N

e v ils , 5 7 8 F 3 d
. 1 1 5 8 (9th C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ); U ni t ed St at es v. M i t chel t r ee , 940 F. 2d 1329, 1352 n. 17 ( 10t h C i r . 19 9 1 ) (suggest i ng r emand w i t h an or der t o ent er jud g m en t on a lesse r i n clud ed o ff en se is ap p rop ri ate o n lyw h ere a l es s er i n cl uded off

ens e i ns t r uct i on i s gi ven or w her e par t i es
co n ce d e c o n v ict ion o f the lesser inclu d ed o ff en se w as p rop er); U ni t ed St at es v. Melt on , 491 F. 2d 45, 49 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1973) (r efusi ng t o o rder entr y of j ud gm ent on a l esser i ncluded off ense
w her e t he defe ndant s peci fi cal l y r ej ect ed a l es s er i ncl uded offe ns e i ns t r uct i on and t he gover nm ent chos e t o s eek c onvi ct i on
o n o n ly th e g re a te r o f

f e n s e ). O ther c o u rt s o f a p p ea ls ha v e h eld th at a s e p a ra te j u ryW hi ch pr ovi des : “The Supre m e C our t or anyot her 5 cour t of appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on m ayaff i r m , m odi fy , vaca t e, s et asid e o r rev erse an y jud g m en t, d ec ree , o r ord er o f a co u rt l aw ful l y br ought befor e i t for r evi ew , and may r emand t he c a u se a n d d ire c t th e e n try o f su c h a p p ro p ria te ju d g m e n t, decr ee, or or der , or r equi r e s uch fur t her pr ocee di ngs t o be had a s m a y b e ju s t u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 6
.
30 i n stru c t i on on a l esser i ncluded off ense i s not r equ i red as a p re re q u is ite f

o r e x e rc is in g th e ir a u th o ri ty u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2106. S e e , e.g ., U

n itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 1 3 F .3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 3 (1 0 th 5 C i r . 1993) ( r emandi ng for r es ent enci ng o n the l es s er i ncl uded
o f f e n se d e s p ite a b se n c e o f a ju ry in stru c tio n ); U

ni t ed St at es v. H unt , 1 2 9 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 5 -4 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed St at es v. C obb , 558 F. 2d 486, 489 ( 8t h C i r . 1977) ( fi ndi ng t hat a convi ct i on for bank robbe r ybyput t i ng i n j eopar dy t he l i fe of anyper s on by m eans of a danger ous w eapon, w hi ch t he cour t of appea l s found w as not s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , di d, nonet hel es s , es t abl i s h eac h el ement for a convi ct i on of t he l es s er31 i ncl uded o ffe ns e of ba nk r obber y by for ce orvi ol ence , and
re m a n d in g f

o r r e s e n ten c in g o n les se r in c lu d e d o f f e n se d e sp ite
a b s e n c e o f

a le s s e r i n c lu d e d o f

f e n s e c h a rg e ). I n Alli son v. Unite d States , 4 09 F. 2d 445 ( D. C. Ci r . 1969) , t he cour t engage d i n a di ffe r ent anal y sis
. T her e,
r at her t han foc us i ng on w het her a l es s er i ncl uded off ens e cha r ge
w as gi ven, t he cour t focus ed on t he na ture o f t he off ens es inv o lv e d an d the p rejud ice to the d ef en d an t. T h e c o u rt
c o n stru e d 2 8 U .S .C
. § 2 1 0 6 a s au th o riz in g “ f e d e ra l a p p e llate
cour t s t o m odi fya cr i m i nal j udgm ent t o t hat of a l es s er i ncl uded offe ns e. ” Id
. at 450- 51. H ow ever , i t emphasi zed “t hat t he circu m stan ce s in w h ich s u ch au tho ri tym ay b e ex erc ised are l i m i t ed. ” Id . a t 4 5 1
. I t m us t be cl ear( 1) t hat t he evi dence adduce d at t r i al fai ls to suppor t one or m or e el ement s of t he cr im e o f w hi ch appe l l ant w as convi ct ed, ( 2) t hat32 s uch evi dence s uffi ci ent l y s us t ai ns al l t he e lem e n ts o f th e o th e r o f f e n se , (3 ) th a t th e latte r is a l es s er i ncl uded off

ens e of t he for m er , and ( 4) t hat no undue pr ej udi ce w i l l r es ul t t o t he ac cus ed. Id
. Pet er s en ar gues t hat hi s convi ct i on for know i ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y pos s es s i ng w i t h i nt ent t o di s t r i but e m or e t han 500 gr ams of coca i ne i s i m pr oper beca us e, gi ven t he l anguage of t he in d ictm e n t, he h a d a “ re a so n a b le e x p e c ta tio n ” th a t h e w o u ld face li abi l i t y onl y for a vi ol at i on of t he s chool y ar d s t at ut e and
n o t f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f

c o c a i n e wi t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e i t . He
c laim s th a t sin c e h e w a s o n ly o n n o tice th a t h e w a s re q u ire d to d e f e n d th e sc h o o ly a rd c h a rg e , a c o n v ictio n f o r p o ss e ss in g w ith i nt ent t o di s t r i but e deni ed hi m due pr oces s . U nder the ra t her
u n iq u e c ir c u m s ta n c e s h e re , th a t a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e ri t. C ount T w o of t he i ndi ct m ent cl ear l y char ges Pet er s en33 w i t h i nt ent i onal l y pos s es s i ng m or e t han 500 gr ams of coc ai ne
w i t h int ent t o dis t ri bu t e, i n v i olat i on of § 84 1(a) (1)
. T hu s, Pet er s en cl ear l y knew t hat he had t o defe nd agai ns t t hatchar ge
a n d th a t ch a rg e h a s a b so lu tely n o th in g to d o w it h p r o x im ityto
a s chool y ar d or § 860( a)
. Pet er s on coul d not p o ssibl y have tho u g ht t hat he onl y had t o defe nd agai ns t pos s es s i ng coca i ne
w i t hi n 1 0 0 0 fe et of a s chool y ar d and t hat he nee d not be
conce r ned w i t h defe ndi ng agai ns t any char ge t hat he pos s es s ed
coca i ne w i t h t he i nt ent t o di s t r i but e. T he ver y defi ni t i on of t he
s chool y ar d offe ns e ( § 860( a) ) , r ef erence s and i ncor por at es t he l at t er offe ns e, § 841( a) ( 1)
. T he j ur y had t o det er m i ne i f Pet er s en
w as g u il tyo f v iolati n g § 8 4 1 (a)(1), i n d ec iding g u ilt un d er § 8 6 0 (a). M o reo v er, t h e u se o f th e sp ec ial jury interrog a tory f u r t h e r r e mo v e s t h e k i n d o f r i s k t h a t c o n c e r n e d t h e S u p r e me C our t i n K e e b le
.W e a re n o t a p p lyin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 6
. 6
34 H i s rel at ed argu m ent t hat he suffered a d ue p rocess d e p riv a tio n b e c a u se h e p re p a re d a d e f e n se a g a in st § 8 6 0 (a ) o n ly and not § 841( a) ( 1) i s s i m i l ar l y fl aw ed; it also appea r s t o be d is in g e n u o u s . See U

ni t ed St at es v. B r oz

yna , 571 F. 2d 742, 746 (2d C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ) (an ind ict m en t “req u ir ed [d ef en d an t] to p rep are t o defe nd not onl y agai ns t t he char ge but al s o agai ns t w hat ever
nece s s ar i l y i ncl uded off ens es and at t empt s s he coul d have be en
c o n v ic te d o f

u n d e r F e d .R .C ri m .P . 3 1 (c ).” ). H i s over ar chi ng cont ent i on t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t er r ed
w h en itsu stai n ed h is § 8 4 1 (a)(1) c o n v ict ion b ec au se th e jury
w as n ev er g iven a lesse r i n clud ed o ff en se c h arg e is t h ere fo re
m er i t l es s un d er a s om ew hat m odi fi ed A l l i s on t est . T he fir st 6 pr ong of t he A l l i s on t es t i nvol ves t he s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence p e rta in in g to th e c rim e o f c o n v ictio n . T h a t in q u iry is35 i n ap p li cabl e her e bec aus e Pet er s en w as not convi ct ed of t he § 860 s chool y ar d char ge. H ow ever , t he r emai nder of t he A l l i s on inq u ir y is r elev an t t o as s e ssing w h at, if an y , im p ac t t h e f ail u re t o gi ve a l es s er i ncl uded off ens e cha r ge had on t he out come of P e ter se n ’s tria l. From the s peci al verd ic t f

o rm s, it is cl ear that the ju ry f o u n dth at th ere w as in s u f f i cien t ev id en ce to sup p o rt a
conv ic ti on fo r v iolati ng § 86 0(a) . Pet er se n d oes not ar gu e that ther e was insuff

ic ie nt evidence to sup p o rt a con vict ion f or a vi ol at i on of § 841(a)(1). As we e xpl a i ne d e ar l i e r , § 841( a ) ( 1) is a le ss er incl ud ed of

fense of § 860 (a ); in fact , § 8 6 0 (a )
s pe c i fi c a l l y

i nc or por at e s § 841( a ) ( 1)
. Not onl y c an Pe t e r s e n not
e s t ab l i s h an y un du e prejud ic e, it is cl ear from

this re cord ( e s pe c i a l l y

gi ve n the c ourt ’ s us e of jury i nt e rr ogat or i e s ) that he
can n o t estab lish an

y prejud ic e. Indeed, he do es no t c la im that“G en erally , w e rev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s ref u sal to 7 gi ve c e rt a i n jury

i ns tr uc t i ons unde r

an abus e of di s c r e t i on

(c o n tin u e d ...)
36 he s uffe r e d any

pr e judi c e . Rathe r , he i s c l a i m i ng that he ha d a
re as on able expect at ion that he w o u ld face l ia bili ty on ly un der § 860, and not

unde r § 841( a ) ( 1)
. Howe ve r , a s w e have
ex p lain ed , th at arg u m en t is w ith o u t m erit. Fo r a ll of the a bo ve re as on s, we will affirm Pete rs en’s j u d g m en t o f

co n v ictio n . B. Do rs et t. D o rsett also fil ed a m o ti o n fo r j u d g m en t of ac q u it tal o r, i n t h e a lte rn a tiv e , f

o r a n e w tr ia l, a rg u in g , in ter a lia , t h a t t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s ai di ng and abe t t i ng j ur y char ge w as i m pr oper beca us e i t di d not cont ai n an ade quat e s peci fi c i nt ent i ns t r uct i on. D or s et t n o w ar gues t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t er r ed i n deny i ng t hat
m ot i on. 7(
. . . cont i nued) 7 s t andar d a l though whe r e , a s he r e , the que s t i on i s whe the r the ju ry inst ruct ions st at ed the proper l egal st andard, our revie w is plenar y .” U n ited Sta tes v. Co

yle , 63 F. 3d 1239, 1245 ( 3d Cir. 19 95 ) ( ci tati on om itte d).
37 Titl e 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 (a ) provides: “Who ever comm it s an
o f f en se ag ain st th e U n itedS tates o r aid s, ab e t s , co u n sels,
co mm an d s , in du ces o r p ro cu res its co mm issio n , is p u n ish ab le
a s apr i nc i pa l
. ” To c onvi c t a pe r s on of a i di ng and abe tt i ng, “ the go vernm ent m

ust prove [b eyon d a re as on able do u b t] : (1) that the s ubs t ant iv e c r i m e ha s be e n c omm i tt e d; and ( 2) that the de fe ndant c har ge d wi th a i di ng and abe tt i ng k n ew of the
co mm issio n o f

th e sub stan tiv e o f

f en se an dactedw ith in ten t to faci li tate it .” U

n ited Sta tes v. S

o to , 539 F.3d19 1, 19 4 (3dCir. 2008)
. “ To e s t abl i s h l i abi l i ty for ac r i m e ba s e d on an a i di ng and
abe tt i ng the ory , the gove rnm e nt m us t pr ove that

the unde r l yi ng
c r i m e oc cu rre d and that

the de fe ndant

kne w of the c r i m e and38 atte m pted to faci li tate it .” Gordon , 290 F.3d at 54 7 (inte rnal qu o tatio n m ark s an d citatio n o m itted ). “T h e g o v ern m en t m u st
a l s o pr ove that

the de fe ndant

ha d the s pe c i fi c in te nt of fa c i l i t at i ng the c r i m e . . . m e r e knowl e dge of th e unde r l yi ng of fense i s not suff

ic ie nt fo r c on vict ion.” Id
. ( cit at i on and i nt e rna l quot at i on m arks om i tt e d)
. “ Spe c i fi c i nt e nt r e qui r e s not si m ply the gener al inte nt to ac com plis h an act

with no part ic ular
e nd i n m i nd, but

the a ddi t i ona l de l i be rat e and c ons c i ous p u rp o se o f acco m

p lish in g a sp ecif

ic an dp ro h ib itedresu lt.” Pi e rr e v . At t ’

yGe n. , 5 2 8 F 3 d . 1 8 0 , 1 8 9 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 8 ). A t th e ch arg in g co n f

eren ce, D o rsett ask ed t h e co u rt to i n s tr u c t th e j u ry th at : “ A n a i d e r

an dab e tt o r

mu s t h av e s o me i nt e r e s t i n the c r i m i na l ve nt

ur e , and the pr os e c ut i on m us t pr ove the de fe ndant ’ s i nt e nt i ona l i nvol ve m ent i n the c r i m e wi th the sp e c i f i c in ten t o f

m ak in g th e crim e su cceed , an dh is39 part i c i pat i oni n the c om

m i s s i onof e v e r

ye le me nt o f th e o f f en se
as defined in these inst ru ct ions.” Rather than give that in stru ctio n , th e co u rt g av e th e f o llo w in g in ten t in stru ctio n : Evi de nc e that

a d e fe ndant

wa s m e r e l y

pr e s e nt dur i ng the c omm i s s i on of the offe ns e i s not enou gh fo r you to fi n d a defend ant guilt y as an ai der andabettor. I n a ddi t i on, . . . i f the e vi de nc e s hows th at the de fe ndant kne w that

the offe ns e wa s be i ng c omm i tt e d, or

wa s about to be c omm i tt e d, but doe s n ot a l s o pr ove be yond ar e a s onabl e doubt th at it w as th e d ef

e n d a n t’s in ten t an dp u rp o se to a i d or othe rwi s e a s s oc i at e hi m s e l f w i th the offe ns e , you m ay

not fi nd the de fe ndant

gui l ty of the offe ns e a s an a i de r and abe tt or . The g o v ern m en t m

u st p ro v e b eyo n d areaso n ab le do ub t t hat the defend ant i n som e way part ic ipat ed in the off ense as som ething the defendant wished t o br i ng about

and m ake s uc c e e d. D o rsett ap p e a r s t o b e arg u in g th at b ecau se w e saidin G o rdo n that

“ [t ]he gove rnm e nt

m us t . . . pr ove that

the de fe ndant ha d the s pe c i fi c i nt e nt of fa c i l i t at i ng the c r i m e , ” 29040 F. 3d at 547, the a i di ng and abe tt i ng i ns tr uc t i on m us t c ont a i n the
w o rd s “sp ecif

ic in ten t.” His ar gu m ent fail s fo r two r ea sons. Firs t, the d is tr ic t
c ourt us e d the Thi r d Ci r c ui t ’ s Mode l Cr i m i na l Jury I ns tr uc t i ons § 7. 02 for a i di ng and abe tt i ng. The di s tr i c t c ourt ’ s i ns tr

uc t i on
on inte nt is taken v er

bati m from those m od el inst

ruct ions. W e have a hard ti m e c on cl ud ing that t he use of o ur ow n m od el ju ry i n s tr u c t i o n c a n c o n s t i t

u t e e rr o r , an dn o th i n g th at D o r s e tt s ays
rem o v es o u r d o ub t th at u se o f su ch an in stru ctio n can co n stitu te
er ror. Mo re ov er , D orse tt do es no t even con te ndthat the m od el i ns tr uc t i on i s wr ong. Se c ond, we be l i e ve that the phr a s e s “ the d ef en d an t’s in ten t an dp u rp o se to aido r o th erw ise asso ciate him se lf with the o ff

ense ” and“that the defend ant i n som e way part ic ipat ed in the off

ense as som eth in g th e defendant wished to bring abo ut and m ake succ ee d” suff ic ie ntly info rm ed the jury41 that i t ha d t o fi nd that

Dor s e tt ha d the s pe c i fi c i nt e nt

t o a i d and ab et th e crim e ch arg edin th e in d ictm en t. Ac c or di ngl y , we wi l l a l s o a ffi rm Dor s e tt ’ s judgm e nt of
c onvi c t i on.