Opinion ID: 749900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenge to Jury Instructions

Text: 46 Agostino next challenges the court's instructions to the jury regarding the federal funds element, arguing that the district court erred by not providing the jury with the text of allegedly relevant Indiana statutes set forth in defendant's tendered instruction number four. The defense contends that the statutes were necessary to enable the jury to determine whether Goetz was an agent of an agency that received the requisite federal funding. We review jury instructions as a whole, asking whether they were sufficient to inform the jury correctly of the applicable law. Wilson v. Williams, 83 F.3d 870, 874 (7th Cir.1996); see also Maltby v. Winston, 36 F.3d 548, 560 (7th Cir.1994). In this review we avoid fastidiousness and inquire only whether the correct message was conveyed to the jury reasonably well. Wilson, 83 F.3d at 874; see also United States v. Perez, 43 F.3d 1131, 1137 (7th Cir.1994). We will reverse only if,  'considering all the instructions, the evidence and the arguments,' it appears that 'the jury was misled ... [and its] understanding of the issues was seriously affected to the prejudice of the complaining party.'  Roggow v. Mineral Processing Corp., 894 F.2d 246, 248 (7th Cir.1990) (alteration in original) (quoting Simmons v. Pinkerton's, Inc., 762 F.2d 591, 597 (7th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. Hall, 109 F.3d 1227, 1237 (7th Cir.), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 153, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1997); Perez, 43 F.3d at 1137. 47 The district court instructed the jury as follows: 48 In order to establish the offense of bribery, the government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 49 First, that the defendant offered, gave, or agreed to give anything of value to another person; 50 Second, that the defendant did so corruptly with intent to influence or reward an agent of a state agency in connection with any business, transaction or series of transactions of that agency involving a thing of value of $5,000 or more; and 51 Third, that the state agency involved must have received, in a one-year period, in excess of $10,000 in federal funds or benefits. 52 .... 53 It is not required that each division or subpart of a state agency receive any federal funds or benefits. All that is required is that the state agency have received at least $10,000 in federal funds or benefits in any one-year period. 54 This last paragraph is an accurate statement of law if the agent in question is an agent of the state agency itself and not just an agent of a division or subpart of that agency. See Moeller, 987 F.2d at 1137 ([S]o long as the agency received $10,000 per year from a federal assistance program, its agents are subject to section 666.) The uncontroverted evidence in this case established that Goetz was an employee of INDOT, and therefore under the statutory definition, he was an agent of INDOT. 3 The jury instruction therefore was sufficient to inform the jury correctly of the applicable law. Wilson, 83 F.3d at 874. Agostino's challenge to the jury instruction is therefore denied.