Opinion ID: 3063901
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the question from the jury

Text: Finally, we are asked whether the court abused its discretion when, in responding to the jury's question with respect to the withdrawal defense, it directed the jury to review the instructions again and reformulate the question if it wished. Battle urged the court to answer this question “NO,” pursuant to United States v. Adkinson, 158 F.3d 1147, 1160 n.23 (11th Cir. 1998). The government argued that the question was vague and that the court should instruct the jurors to review the instructions. The court told the jury it could not answer the question without making assumptions about what the jury had decided. He permitted them to reformulate the question and to review the Withdrawal Defense Instruction, as well 29 as the instructions as a whole. The court found, and the government argues on appeal, that Adkinson is not pertinent to the issue because Adkinson did not involve money-laundering as an activity, but rather concerned how the defendants had spent their ill-gotten gains (related to concealment), which was irrelevant to the main issue of the conspiracy in Adkinson (whether there was a bank fraud). There is no argument that the jury instruction as originally given was improper. The jury did not reformulate the question. Based on our analysis as discussed supra, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this regard.