Opinion ID: 683513
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Unanimity Charge

Text: 40 Because Shaoul objects to the jury instructions for the first time on appeal, we review those instructions for plain error. FED.R.CRIM.P. 30, 52(b); United States v. Lopez, 937 F.2d 716, 725 (2d Cir.1991). The error must be so 'plain' [that] the trial judge and prosecutor were derelict in countenancing it, even absent the defendant's timely assistance in detecting it. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). 41 Shaoul argues primarily that Judge DiCarlo did not properly instruct the jury that they had to be unanimous regarding (1) which overt acts took place in furtherance of the charged conspiracy, and (2) which alleged misrepresentations by Shaoul were materially false and thus supported the mail fraud charges. 3 Shaoul argues that the court's instructions left the jury confused and greatly increased the likelihood of their returning a less-than-unanimous verdict. 42 After instructing the jury about the mail fraud and conspiracy charges, as described earlier, the district court gave the following general unanimity instruction: To report a verdict, it should be unanimous. (Tr. at 1112). 43 Assuming for the argument only that the jury did have to agree on which particular overt act Shaoul committed and which particular misrepresentation he made, we nevertheless find that the district court was required only to instruct the jury generally about its duty to return a unanimous verdict. United States v. Harris, 8 F.3d 943, 945 (2d Cir.1993) (While a specific charge regarding unanimity of the factual basis for the verdict may be given, it is not error to refuse to give such a charge.); United States v. Schiff, 801 F.2d 108, 114-15 (2d Cir.1986) (A general instruction on unanimity is sufficient to insure that ... a unanimous verdict is reached, except in cases where the complexity of the evidence or other factors create a genuine danger of jury confusion.) (internal citations omitted), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 945, 107 S.Ct. 1603, 94 L.Ed.2d 789 (1987); United States v. Natelli, 527 F.2d 311, 325 & n. 11 (2d Cir.1975) (citing United States v. Remington, 191 F.2d 246, 250 (2d Cir.1951) (L. Hand, A. Hand, Swan, JJ.), cert. denied, 343 U.S. 907, 72 S.Ct. 580, 96 L.Ed. 1325 (1952)), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1663, 48 L.Ed.2d 175 (1976). Indeed, the general unanimity charge that we reviewed and upheld in Harris closely resembles the charge given by the district court in the case at bar. Compare Harris, 8 F.3d at 945 n. 2 (reporting that the district judge instructed the jury, your verdict must be unanimous on each count) with Tr. at 1112 (To report a verdict, it should be unanimous.). Even in circumstances where it might have been advisable as a matter of sound policy to give specific unanimity instructions, 4 we have held that failure to give such instructions does not constitute plain error. United States v. Peterson, 768 F.2d 64, 68 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 923, 106 S.Ct. 257, 88 L.Ed.2d 264 (1985).