Opinion ID: 1194675
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Objection to the Challenged Instruction

Text: The instruction at issue on this appeal first appeared in a proposed charge previewed by the court for the parties in advance of summation. Its apparent purpose was to explain to the jury that its verdict must be based on the evidence and not on sympathy. The challenged language read: Under your oath as jurors you are not to be swayed by sympathy. You are to be guided solely by the evidence in the case and the crucial, hard-core question that you must ask yourselves as you sift through the evidence is, where do you find the truth? The only triumph in any case, whether it be civil or criminal, is whether or not the truth has triumphed. If it has, then justice has been done. If not, justice will not have been done. You are to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant you are considering solely on the basis of the evidence and subject to the law as I have charged you. Proposed Charge at 59; see also Trial Tr. at 272. Through counsel, Shamsideen objected both to this language and to its proposed placement at the end of the jury charge, arguing that it would confuse a jury about the Government's burden. . . . to prove [guilt] beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial Tr. at 272. He requested that the court instead employ the model sympathy charge endorsed in Modern Federal Jury Instructions, which reads: Under your oath as jurors you are not to be swayed by sympathy. You are to be guided solely by the evidence in this case and the crucial, hard-core question that you must ask yourself as you sift through the evidence is: Has the government proven the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt? Leonard B. Sand, et al., 1 Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal, Instruction 2-12 (2003). The district court overruled the objection and indicated its intent to adhere to its proposed charge.