Opinion ID: 705158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury instruction regarding termination of the conspiracy

Text: 39 Knowles argues that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on whether the conspiracy had terminated before he became involved. He acknowledges that he did not request such an instruction at trial, and, therefore, we review the issue for plain error. 30 Under that standard, there must be error, the error must be plain, and the error must affect substantial rights. 31 If these three prongs are met, we then have the discretion to correct the error, and we should do so if the error 'seriously effect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  32 As is discussed above, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude that Knowles' activities occurred during the pendency of the conspiracy. The district court's failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on the possible termination of the conspiracy was not plain error. 40