Opinion ID: 2994954
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Issues common to Mr. Ford and Mr.

Text: Gaughan
Mr. Ford and Mr. Gaughan raise jointly a claim of instructional error. They argue that the district court’s jury instruction regarding vicarious liability for the acts of co- conspirators, pursuant to Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946), was erroneous. The instruction, they claim, failed to convey to jurors that they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the substantive offense was committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of or as a natural consequence of the conspiracy. Although trial counsel objected to the Pinkerton instruction in the district court, his objections were only of a general nature, and he did not raise this particular argument./13 Thus, our review is only for plain error. See United States v. Cooke, 110 F.3d 1288, 1293 (7th Cir. 1997) (Although Cooke objected to instruction 22, he did so on grounds other than those asserted here. Accordingly, we review for plain error.); United States v. Roth, 860 F.2d 1382, 1390 (7th Cir. 1988) (An objection that does not point out the problem in the instruction is insufficient because it does not give fair prospect of timely correction.). The court’s Pinkerton instruction stated: A conspirator is responsible for offenses committed by his fellow conspirators if he was a member of the conspiracy when the offense was committed and if the offense was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Therefore, if you find a defendant guilty of the conspiracy as charged in Count 1 and if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that while that defendant was a member of the conspiracy, his fellow conspirators committed the offenses charged in Counts 2, 3, 4, and/or 5, then you should find him guilty of Counts 2, 3, 4, and/or 5. R.295, Inst. 52. The Government argues that the instruction closely follows the language of Seventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction 5.09, that the first sentence of the instruction makes clear that Pinkerton liability only attaches when coconspirators act in furtherance of the conspiracy and that the jury was reminded repeatedly that its findings must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, in the Government’s view, the instructions, taken as a whole, adequately informed the jury of the elements of the Pinkerton doctrine. It is true that the first sentence of the court’s instruction follows Pattern Instruction