Opinion ID: 453236
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Instructions on Joint Venture

Text: 11 The defendant's second assignment of error is that the district court unnecessarily highlighted the Government's burden of proof when the district court gave three allegedly repetitious and similar jury instructions concerning the law of joint venture. While the defendant has conceded that the substance of each of the instructions was not improper, he claims that the repetitive nature of the instructions was prejudicial to him. The three jury instructions were adopted and given verbatim from Jury Instructions Sections 5.05(a), 5.06(b), and 5.07(c), which were prepared by the Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit. 3 12 Our task in determining the propriety of the jury instructions is to examine whether the instructions, taken as a whole, fairly and adequately stated the law pertinent to the elements of the offenses charged. Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146-147, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400-401, 38 L.Ed.2d 368, 373 (1973); United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1163 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 976, 94 S.Ct. 3184, 41 L.Ed.2d 1146 (1974). We find the joint venture instructions were not repetitive or inappropriate given the defendant Bailey's activities and his supervisory role in this fraudulent scheme which differed from that of co-defendant Darryl Brisco or co-conspirator Eric Lewis. While the defendant Bailey did not endorse or negotiate any of the stolen money orders himself, the evidence unequivocally shows that the defendant participated in this conspiratorial scheme by supplying the money orders to, and collecting a portion of the cash proceeds from, Darryl Brisco and Eric Lewis. We cannot accept the argument that the defendant Bailey was prejudiced by the joint venture instructions when the district court was particularly careful that the jury understood the offenses charged, as well as the burden upon the Government to prove all the essential elements of its case necessary to return a conviction. U.S. v. Nerone, 563 F.2d 836, 849 (7th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 951, 98 S.Ct. 1577, 55 L.Ed.2d 801 (1978). 13 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.