Opinion ID: 369349
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Court's Instructions

Text: 108 The defendants' only complaint concerning the District Court's instructions to the jury relates to the following concededly inadvertent remark: One who violates section 1343 shall be fined not more than $1000 excuse me. Delete that. Sentencing is up to the court. That is what the statute says. 109 Later, after raising several other objections to the instructions, counsel for the defendants complained about the above-quoted reference to the penalty portion of the statute and moved for a mistrial. The defendants maintained that the court should have read the entire penalty provision so that the jury would not be led to convict on the belief that the only penalty would be a fine. The court overruled all of the defendants' motions and gave the following curative instruction: 110 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I inadvertently mentioned with reference to Count Three of the indictment, a portion of the penalty provision of that statute. As I stated at that time, you are not to concern yourself in any way with the penalty provisions of any statute because your only duty in this case, and it is a solemn duty, is to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendants in this case. So please disregard, I inadvertently said something about it, please disregard it and strike it completely from your mind. 111 In these appeals, the defendants have repeated their contentions, likening this case to one where the judge offers a jury two sets of instructions, one of which is incorrect, and it is impossible to tell which one the jury followed. 112 We disagree. We believe that the court's curative instruction was adequate to eliminate any possible prejudice and reject the defendants' claim that the jury was likely misled. See United States v. Davidson, 367 F.2d 60, 63-65 (6th Cir. 1966).