Opinion ID: 814677
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Burden Shift Argument

Text: Defendants argue that the inclusion of twenty statements of what the government did not have to prove to meet certain elements of the charged offenses impermissibly shifted the burden to the defense by lessening the government’s burden of proof. Defendants also allege that the district court erred in failing to include specific language in the jury instructions that the Defendants must be presumed innocent “unless and until” proven guilty. Challenges to the formulation of jury instructions are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.6 See United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2007). Plain error review applies here, however, because Defendants did not adequately preserve the burden-shifting issue for appeal.7 The district court repeatedly instructed the jury regarding the correct burden of proof. Specifically, the instructions 6 Defendants’ assertion that de novo review applies pursuant to United States v. Shannon, 137 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 1998), is incorrect. See United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 922 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (overruling Shannon and reiterating the general applicability of abuse of discretion review to the formulation of jury instructions). 7 The record reflects two opportunities for preservation of this issue. First, Defendants raised an objection to the government’s proposed instructions on count two. After consultation, however, Defendants withdrew their objection, thereby waiving it. See United States v. Masters, 118 F.3d 1524, 1526 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Thomas, 896 F.2d 589, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Defendants’ second objection became moot when the district court declined to give the challenged instruction. Thus, Defendants did not properly preserve their burdenshifting challenge, and plain error review applies. 34 UNITED STATES V . XU referred to the presumption of innocence and the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court also instructed the jury that a guilty verdict must be unanimous, and that the Defendants’ decision not to testify should not be used to infer guilt. Despite conclusory allegations, Defendants do not show how the twenty references to what the government did not have to prove lessened the government’s burden of proof. Furthermore, the Defendants’ allegation that the district court erred in failing to include specific language that the Defendants are to be presumed innocent “unless and until” proven guilty is unavailing. Defendants’ own authority, Rhoades v. Henry, 598 F.3d 495, 506–08 (9th Cir. 2010), subverts their argument. The Rhoades court professed no preference for Defendants’ desired “unless and until” language. See id. Moreover, even if omitting such language was erroneous, when read in the context of the overall instructions, it is unlikely that the omission would cause the jury to misapply the government’s burden of proof. See id. at 508.