Opinion ID: 727068
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Failure to Give Supplemental Instruction on Drug-Related Murder

Text: 46 Defendants argue that it was plain error not to give a supplemental instruction to the jury when it asked for clarification as to the meaning of drug-related. This argument must fail because the district court's answer was an appropriate response. The jury asked about a phrase--drug-related murder--that was not really a part of the statutory offense but merely shorthand for a more cumbersome description--i.e., killing while engaging in or working in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, or [while] engaging in an offense punishable under section 841(b)(1)(A). 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A). The court's answer properly directed the jury back to the part of the instruction dealing with this more cumbersome description. Thus, unlike the situation in United States v. Nunez, 889 F.2d 1564 (6th Cir.1989), the jury's inquiry in this case was fully covered in the court's instructions, and a reference to or rereading of the instructions did suffice. Id. at 1569. The court merely had to explain that drug-related meant the same thing as what the instruction already stated in subparagraph (C) on page 38 of the Instructions. J.A. at 405. The court made explicit a link between two parts of the jury instruction that may not have been adequately linked before. Certainly, there was nothing approaching plain error in this. 47