Opinion ID: 709226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statute of Limitations Instruction

Text: 46 The district court instructed the jury that Maloney could not be found guilty of the racketeering charge unless you find that he committed one of the racketeering acts set forth in Count Two within five years of the return of the indictment which occurred on June 26, 1991. Thus, to find defendant Thomas J. Maloney guilty, the government must prove that he committed Racketeering Act 5 and/or Racketeering Act 6. Maloney argues that the use of the word, thus, and its placement in the instruction, implied that both Act 5 and Act 6 fell within the limitations period, an issue in doubt with respect to Act 5. Further clouding the issue, according to Maloney, was that the court read a standard on or about instruction early on in its charge to the jury. 14 Neither of these arguments have merit. The statute of limitations instruction accurately reflected that one of the acts must have occurred no longer than five years before June 26, 1991. The district court's use of the term thus served to direct the jury's attention to Acts 5 and 6, the only acts which could possibly come within the limitations period. Any doubt the jury had after hearing the general on or about instruction was removed upon hearing this specific statute of limitations instruction and upon hearing it reread in answer to a jury question. Moreover, even if there was any error, it was harmless in light of the jury's verdict of guilty on Act 6, which was well within the limitations period, and our conclusion that this verdict should be allowed to stand. See United States v. Neuroth, 809 F.2d 339, 341-42 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 916, 107 S.Ct. 3190, 96 L.Ed.2d 678 (1987) (finding that an on or about instruction was harmless error despite the presence of an alibi defense).