Opinion ID: 654601
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Particulars of the Instant Case

Text: 70 Finally, we turn to the facts of the instant case and the likelihood of jury confusion from the evidence presented. As discussed above, at least four of the firearms seized from Correa's residence were indisputably linked to drugs or to conceded proceeds. See supra note 7. As noted previously, the district court instructed the jury that, in order to convict Correa of the Section 924(c) violation: 71 [Y]ou must be convinced that the Government has proved ... beyond a reasonable doubt: that the Defendant knowingly used or carried a firearm during and in relation to the Defendant's commission of the crimes alleged in Counts One or Two. 72 You are instructed that possession alone of a firearm is not sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of Count Three. You must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the firearms in evidence played a role in or facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, the commission of a drug offense. In other words, you must find that at least one of the firearms was an integral part of the drug offense charged.... 73 (emphasis added). The court further instructed the jury that [t]o reach a verdict, all of you must agree. Your verdict must be unanimous on each count of the Superseding Indictment. In light of our holding that an additional, specific unanimity instruction was not mandated, we find these instructions to be sufficient. It would not appear that the individual jurors were confused by the introduction of firearms not specifically tied to drug trafficking, since the court specifically charged the jurors to consider only those weapons which played a role in or facilitated, or had the potential of facilitating, the commission of a drug offense.V. Conclusion 74 In sum, we find that a specific unanimity instruction was not required with respect to the identity of the firearm used or carried by Correa. 34 In doing so, we recognize that verdict specificity may be required for some violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c). 35 Even if we were permitted to do so, we would not be able to predict in an advisory fashion which fact-settings will necessitate such protection. As discussed above, such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the charges made, the evidence presented, and the likelihood of jury confusion. We hold only that, under the facts of this case, no such instruction was warranted, especially in light of the general instruction that was given. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.