Opinion ID: 202748
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction on Loss

Text: 142 Appellants also challenge the district court's refusal to give an instruction explaining that, when FIRREA was enacted in 1989, many institutions immediately fell out of compliance with regulatory capital requirements, making them subject to seizure by thrift regulators. United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 857-58, 116 S.Ct. 2432, 135 L.Ed.2d 964 (1996). Appellants contend that, given the admission of evidence relating to financial loss, the jury should have been instructed that bank failures were common in the aftermath of FIRREA's enactment. In other words, the jury should have been told that banks commonly lost money in the absence of fraud. 143 A district court's refusal to issue a jury instruction `constitutes reversible error only if the requested instruction was (1) correct as a matter of substantive law, (2) not substantially incorporated into the charge as rendered, and (3) integral to an important point in the case.' White v. N.H. Dep't of Corrs., 221 F.3d 254, 263-64 (1st Cir.2000) (citation omitted). No such error occurred here. The FIRREA instruction was not integral to an important point in the case because loss is not an element of bank fraud. Moreover, the jury was instructed that the government need not prove loss. Thus, we find no reversible error in the district court's decision.