Opinion ID: 779777
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Narrowly Tailored Jury Charge

Text: 3 The City did not object to the court's instruction on the narrowly tailored prong of the strict scrutiny test at trial. We therefore review the instruction for fundamental error; that is, an error so serious and flagrant that it goes to the very integrity of the trial. Shade v. Housing Auth. of New Haven, 251 F.3d 307, 312-13 (2d Cir.2001) (citations omitted). The trial court's instruction on narrowly tailored could not possibly have affected the integrity of the trial, since the jury, having determined that the City had failed to establish a compelling state interest, did not go on to consider whether the transfers were narrowly tailored. 6 (A. 1195-96, 1373-74.) Any error in the instructions relating to this standard was harmless. See United States v. Masotto, 73 F.3d 1233, 1239 (2d Cir.1996); Richards v. City of Topeka, 173 F.3d 1247, 1253 (10th Cir.1999). 4