Opinion ID: 2974870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oral Jury Instruction Error

Text: While charging the jury, the court made the following statement, which, in part, erroneously put the burden on the defendant to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt: Your verdict, ladies and gentlemen, whether it is guilty or not guilty must be unanimous and to find the defendant guilty, each and every one of you must agree that the Government has overcome his presumption of innocence and with evidence that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To find the Defendant not guilty, every one of you must agree that the Defendant has failed to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt. Either way, guilty or not guilty, your verdict must be unanimous. Because Edwards did not object to this instruction, we review his claim under the plain-error standard. United States v. Jones, 108 F.3d 668, 670 (6th Cir. 1997). Edwards must show a plain error that affected his substantial rights. Id. We have discretion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) in 2 In preparing the police department report, Sergeant Decker mistakenly stated in the “Property Section” of the report that the firearm was recovered by Allen Moore (no person named Allen Moore was involved in the situation). Because the “Property Section” of the report is reproduced in the other officers’ reports, the mistake appeared in those “Property Sections” as well. In the narrative section, however, Decker correctly identified Edwards as having possessed the firearm. Additionally, Decker apparently misspoke during his testimony, referring to Edwards as “Mr. Allen.” His testimony makes clear that there was no ambiguity at trial about whom Decker was speaking. Edwards attempts to discredit the government’s case based on these errors, but these inconsistencies appear clearly outweighed by the officers’ testimony. -5- No. 05-2634 United States v. Edwards choosing whether to correct a plain error, and we generally decline to exercise that discretion unless “the plain error affecting substantial rights seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, although Edwards has no difficulty demonstrating an error by the district court that was plain—the government must convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt—he cannot make any meaningful showing that the court’s misstatement affected his substantial rights. First, the district court correctly stated the government’s burden of proof in the written instructions provided to the jury. Second, as the government’s brief illustrates in detail, the court repeatedly stated the government’s burden correctly during its preliminary instructions to the jury and its final charge to the jury. Viewing the court’s misstatement in context, Edwards clearly cannot meet his burden to show that the error affected his right to a fair trial in any meaningful way—there is no reason to believe the jury required Edwards to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. We decline to grant Edwards a new trial.