Opinion ID: 200842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure of District Court to Respond To Requested Instructions

Text: 66 Thurston argues that the district court violated Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.P., which provides: 67 (a) In General. Any party may request in writing that the court instruct the jury on the law as specified in the request. The request must be made at the close of the evidence or at any earlier time that the court reasonably sets. When the request is made, the requesting party must furnish a copy to every other party. 68 (b) Ruling on a Request. The court must inform the parties before closing arguments how it intends to rule on the requested instructions. 69 Thurston is correct: the district court failed to inform the parties of how it intended to rule on each of the requested instructions before closing arguments, as required by the rule. 70 A description of the interactions of court and counsel sets the stage. Each side submitted extensive requests for instructions, and there were disagreements. 15 The court did resolve the most serious disputes over some of the instructions (for instance, on the reasonable interpretation/ Prigmore question) and told counsel these rulings before closing argument. The court did not, though, review all of the requests. Thurston's counsel did not object to this silence before giving his closing. 71 Defense counsel did raise an issue after closing, and before the jury was instructed, that he wanted to put on record his specific objections to the government's requests. He did not say he had been prejudiced in any way by the court's failure to rule on the requested instructions before he gave his closing. The court replied that it would neither rule on nor hear argument on the proposed instructions. Rather, the court stated its understanding that the appropriate time to object was at the end of the instructions. Nonetheless, it did hear argument on the government's Request No. 8 (the compelled witness rule), and declined to give the instruction. It also heard argument on the government's proposed instructions No. 18 (conspiracy); No. 19 (unlawful objectives); and No. 22 (overt act). The only proposed defense instruction called to the court's attention was No. 24, on missing witnesses. 72 The district court did not, as Rule 30 requires, tell counsel before closing argument its disposition of all of the requested instructions. But counsel for Thurston had an obligation to bring this to the court's attention before the closing and did not do so. 73 Without addressing the issue of whether Thurston has thus forfeited the Rule 30 argument, we choose to simply evaluate whether defense counsel's closing argument was adversely affected. See United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 753 (1st Cir.1999). It was not. One telling indicium that there was no prejudice is that trial counsel did not ever say to the court he would be prejudiced if he had to proceed with his closing without knowing the court's disposition of the remaining requested instructions. 74 An even more telling indicium of lack of prejudice is that Thurston's appellate counsel has been unable to identify any specific areas of prejudice occasioned by the trial court's lapse. While in theory such a lapse could cause prejudice, the most that is argued here is that there was no detailed reference to important legal concepts regarding criminal conspiracy and the state of mind by which Thurston would be judged. Appellate counsel does not identify those important legal concepts, and we see none. As to Thurston's state of mind, the trial judge did instruct on the government's burden to show Thurston had a specific intent to participate in the conspiracy and to defraud the United States. The court instructed the jury to consider Thurston individually to determine if he willfully joined the conspiracy. The court, in turn, defined willfully. The court also explicitly rejected Thurston's reasonable interpretation instruction, and it instructed on good faith. These circumstances belie any claim of prejudice and Thurston's claim fails. 75