Opinion ID: 361114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Court's Instructions 12, 18, 32 and 39 Were Permissible

Text: 39 Defendants criticize Instruction 12 because it covers only 7 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 244, 252, 254 and 256 and does not include other Sections of the Warehouse Act which refer to warehouse receipts. However, the evidence shows that warehouse receipts were not utilized by Central Soya in these transactions and they were not mentioned in the indictment. Consequently, it would have been misleading and confusing for the district court to refer to the statutory warehouse receipt provisions. 40 Defendants also criticize Instruction 18 because it told the jury it could find a conspiracy under Count I of the indictment if the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt a conspiracy to violate any one of the (4) statutes alleged (Tr. 587). This instruction is correct. United States v. Grizaffi, 471 F.2d 69, 73 (7th Cir. 1972); United States v. Tanner,471 F.2d 128, 140 (7th Cir. 1972). 41 Defendants contend that Instruction 22, defining a scheme to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, was deficient because it did not indicate that the falsity need be substantial (Br. 22). However, the court's instruction was taken from 2 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Court Practices and Instructions, § 47.04 (3d ed. 1977), and has been approved in United States v. Bush, 522 F.2d 641, 651, notes 10 and 11 (7th Cir. 1975). 42 Defendants also object to court Instruction 39 dealing with accomplice testimony. Such an instruction was drawn from 1 Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practices and Instructions, § 17.06 (3d ed. 1977), and has been approved in United States v. Morales, 477 F.2d 1309, 1313 (5th Cir. 1973). Because the instruction told the jury that accomplice testimony is to be received with caution, scrutinized closely, and weighed with great care (Tr. 597), defendants were adequately protected. 43