Opinion ID: 727816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mail Fraud Instruction

Text: 4 Borkowski argues that the court's instruction on the elements of mail fraud deprived him of the right to a unanimous jury verdict. The court's instruction regarding the elements of mail fraud stated, in relevant part, 5 In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 6 First, the defendant made up a scheme or plan for obtaining money or property by making false representations or statements, with all of you agreeing on at least one particular false representation or statement that was made. 1 7 Second, the defendant knew that the representation or representations were false. 8 Third, the representations or statements were of a kind that would reasonably influence a person to part with money or property. 9 Fourth, the defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and 10 Fifth, the defendant used or caused to be used the mails to carry out or attempt to carry out the scheme. 11 Borkowski argues this instruction did not convey the requirement that the jury unanimously agree on (1) a false statement or misrepresentation (2) that was material. He suggests the jury could have unanimously agreed on at least one false or misleading statement while not unanimously agreeing on the materiality of that statement. In other words, one juror could have had an idea different from another as to which statement was material. 12 When reviewing an allegedly erroneous jury instruction this court considers the instructions as a whole and evaluates their adequacy in the context of the whole trial. United States v. Smith, 891 F.2d 703, 708 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990). For a finding of plain error, there must be a high probability that the error materially affected the verdict. U.S. v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir.1989). Reversal of a criminal conviction on the basis of plain error is an exceptional remedy, ... [invoked] only when it appears necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judicial process. United States v. Bustillo, 789 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.1986). 13 There was no error. Admittedly, this instruction, which is a slightly modified version of Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instruction 8.26A, would leave less room for doubt if the second and third elements had expressly referred to the representation(s) or statement(s) upon which you unanimously agree, rather than to the representation(s) or statement(s). However, the use of the definite article the in the instruction given by the court clearly refers to the antecedent phrase at least one particular false representation that was made. We therefore find it unlikely that the jury misunderstood the instruction to allow a finding of materiality with respect to statements or representations upon which the jury had not unanimously agreed. Because the standard for reversal is high probability that the error materially affected the verdict, this court will not reverse Borkowski's conviction. 14