Opinion ID: 660294
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amendment of Model Jury Instructions

Text: 13 The district court deviated from the Eleventh Circuit pattern instruction to consider each defendant and each count separately, 12 stating that the jury's decision as to the guilt or innocence of any defendant need not necessarily affect its verdict as to another defendant, instead of stating that the jury's decision should not affect its verdict as to another defendant. Chaves contends that this instruction may have encouraged the jury to impute to him his co-defendants' knowledge that the seafood was stolen. See United States v. Tavoularis, 515 F.2d 1070, 1074 (2d Cir.1975) (where substantive offense requires specific knowledge, that knowledge may not be imputed). So long as the jury charge as a whole accurately reflects the law and the facts, the district court has broad discretion in formulating a jury charge. United States v. Turner, 871 F.2d 1574, 1578 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 997, 110 S.Ct. 552, 107 L.Ed.2d 548 (1989). 14 We shall assume arguendo that, read in isolation, the court's statement that the jury's decision as to the guilt or innocence of any defendant need not necessarily affect its verdict as to any other defendant imputed knowledge among the defendants. Nonetheless, it is without question that the district court's instructions, as a whole, substantially informed the jury to avoid imputing knowledge among defendants. Immediately after the above charge, the court supplemented the pattern instruction: The important thing for you to remember[,] and particularly important in the case where you have seven defendants, is that each defendant and the case against each one, the separate counts against each one is a separate case and they should be treated individually in your consideration. Further, the district court expressly instructed the jury that the government had to prove that each defendant knew the property was stolen. As a whole, then, the district court's instructions amply directed the jury that its verdict as to one defendant should not affect its verdict as to any other defendant. 13 Hence, the district court's jury charge was not an abuse of discretion. 14