Opinion ID: 2995132
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Buchmeier’s Theory of Defense Jury

Text: Instruction Buchmeier also challenges the district court’s refusal to submit his theory of defense instruction to the jury. At the end of Buchmeier’s trial his counsel proposed the following theory of defense instruction: The defendant’s mere association with those who may have possessed firearms is insufficient to show possession or constructive possession. The defendant’s possession or constructive possession is not established by the defendant having played the role of a finder or broker, or by the defendant having brought a buyer and seller together. The government objected to this proposed instruction, arguing that neither the constructive possession language nor the mere association language were appropriate based on the evidence in the case. The district court refused to submit the proposed instruction to the jury, over Buchmeier’s objections, finding that there was an insufficient evidentiary record to support such an instruction. Because Buchmeier properly objected at trial to the district court’s ruling, we review the district court’s decision not to instruct the jury on his theory of defense de novo. See United States v. Irorere, 228 F.3d 816, 825 (7th Cir. 2000). With regard to a defendant’s right to have his or her theory of defense instruction submitted to the jury, this Court has explained that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction as to his or her particular theory of defense provided: (1) the instruction represents an accurate statement of the law; (2) the instruction reflects a theory that is supported by the evidence; (3) the instruction reflects a theory which is not already part of the charge; and (4) the failure to include the instruction would deny the appellant a fair trial. United States v. Swanquist, 161 F.3d 1064, 1075 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Edwards, 36 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 1994)). Buchmeier now contends that his theory of defense instruction met these requirements, and therefore, the district court erroneously denied his proposed instruction. He further argues that the court’s error denied him a fair trial because his counsel had specifically relied on this theory of defense in his opening statement and throughout the entire trial only to have it precluded prior to the jury deliberating. The government concedes that the instruction Buchmeier presented to the court was an accurate statement of the law. It contends, however, that the district court properly concluded that there was no factual support in the record to justify the instruction. The government argues that the evidence at trial showed that Buchmeier’s interaction with Schroeder was much more than a mere association with those who may have possessed firearms. Additionally, the government asserts that there is no evidence in the record that Buchmeier played the role of a finder and broker of firearms, or that he brought a buyer and seller together. While a defendant’s theory of defense need only have some foundation in the evidence, however tenuous, Irorere, 228 F.3d at 825 (citations omitted), we find that the district court correctly concluded that there was no evidence presented at Buchmeier’s trial that supported his proposed theory of defense instruction. At oral argument, Buchmeier’s counsel explained that there was only a scintilla of evidence in the record supporting the notion that Buchmeier played the role of a finder or broker of firearms. Although our review of the record indicates that even this description is a generous characterization of the evidence, we agree with the Ninth Circuit that ’[a] ’mere scintilla’ of evidence supporting a defendant’s theory . . . is not sufficient to warrant a defense instruction.’ United States v. Wofford, 122 F.3d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Morton, 999 F.2d 435, 437 (9th Cir. 1993)). There is likewise no evidence in the record to support the idea that Buchmeier’s interaction with Schroeder and the other individuals mentioned above was a mere association with those who may have possessed firearms. Thus, the district court properly refused to submit Buchmeier’s proposed theory of defense instruction to the jury.