Opinion ID: 474866
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instruction on Misrepresentation

Text: 58 Defendant's next argument is based on the following jury instruction: 59 In order to establish that a defendant is guilty of mail fraud, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 60 One, first, the defendant made up a plan or scheme to defraud for the purpose of obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises; 61 Two, the defendant knew that the promises or statements were false with respect to material facts; 62 Three, third, the defendant used or caused to be used the mail to carry out the plan or scheme; 63 Fourth, the defendant acted with the specific intent to defraud. 64 App. at 551. Defendant argues that this instruction failed to inform the jury that the fraudulent representations must have been made as part of the scheme to defraud. In Nolan v. Green, 383 F.2d 814, 816 (6th Cir.1967), we wrote: 65 In considering the correctness and adequacy of a charge to the jury, it should be taken as a whole and read in its entirety; that is, each instruction must be considered in connection with the others of the series referring to the same subject and connected therewith, and if, when taken together, they properly express the law as applicable to the particular case, there is no just ground for complaint, even though an isolated detached clause is in itself inaccurate, ambiguous, incomplete, or otherwise subject to criticism. 66 See also Wood v. Marshall, 790 F.2d 548 (6th Cir.1986). 67 Reading these instructions as a whole, we find defendant's criticism to be without merit. In one sentence the instruction states that the jury must find a scheme to defraud by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In the very next sentence, the court instructed the jury that it must find that the promises or statements were false. Accordingly, we hold that although the instruction in question may not have been as precise as it could have been, it did adequately apprise the jury of the applicable law. 68