Opinion ID: 361114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Refusal of Seven Tendered Instructions of Defendants

Text: 30 Defendants next assert that the district court should have given its proposed Instructions 24, 29, 36, 40, 42, 43 and 52. In considering this matter, the instructions must of course be viewed as a whole (United States v. Rajewski, 526 F.2d 149, 159 (7th Cir. 1975), certiorari denied, 426 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 2231, 48 L.Ed.2d 833). It is unnecessary to give a proposed charge where the essential points are covered in other instructions. United States v. Cook, 530 F.2d 145, 153 (7th Cir. 1976), certiorari denied, 426 U.S. 909, 96 S.Ct. 2234, 48 L.Ed.2d 835. 31 Defendants' Instruction 24 told the jurors that they could not find defendants guilty under Count I unless it found they were involved in the same single conspiracy. This was sufficiently covered by Instructions 8, 9, 13-19 (Tr. 574-575, 580-587), all dealing with the elements of a conspiracy with meticulous care. 32 Defendants' Instruction 29 related to the weight the jurors were to give circumstantial evidence. This was adequately covered by the court's Instruction 38 (Tr. 596-597). 33 Defendants' proposed Instruction 36 dealt with accomplice testimony. The court's Instruction 39 was to the same effect (Tr. 597), rendering defendants' Instruction 36 surplusage. See United States v. Marzano, 537 F.2d 257, 274 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. Rajewski, supra, 526 F.2d at 160. 34 Defendants' proposed Instruction 40 defined the essential elements of violating the mail fraud statute (18 U.S.C. § 1341). It was covered adequately by the court's Instructions 10, 20-24 (Tr. 575-576, 587-590). 35 Defendants' proposed Instruction 42 dealt with the issuance of warehouse receipts under 7 U.S.C. § 251. Since the indictment did not relate in any respect to warehouse receipts, it was unnecessary to give this instruction. 36 Defendants' proposed Instruction 43 would have required the district judge to read to the jury various regulations under the United States Warehouse Act, particularly with respect to their supposedly requiring warehouse receipts in all transactions under the Warehouse Act (Br. 22). 8 As already stated, this instruction was not required because the indictment did not relate to any warehouse receipts. 37 Defendants' proposed Instruction 52 would have told the jury that to constitute a scheme to defraud (apparently referring to Counts II-IV with respect to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341), the evidence must portray beyond a reasonable doubt a systematic plan to defraud as the underlying basis of the deceit. This was covered by Instructions 21 and 22 (Tr. 588-589). 38