Opinion ID: 625333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adin's Proposed Instruction

Text: Adin argues that the district court erred by rejecting his proposed instruction on the theory of the defense. We review de novo the district court's instructions to determine if they adequately covered the defense's theory. United States v. Tucker, 641 F.3d 1110, 1122 (9th Cir.2011). Although a defendant may ask the court to instruct the jury on his theory of defense, and should get a suitable instruction if the theory is supported by law and some evidence, a court may reject a defendant's requested instruction if other instructions reasonably cover the theory of the defense. Id. So long as the instructions fairly and adequately cover the issues presented, the judge's formulation of those instructions or choice of language is a matter of discretion. United States v. Echeverry, 759 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir.1985). Defendants' proposed instruction read: It is Israel and Adin Del Toro's theory of defense that they had no knowledge of the currency concealed in the duffle bag inside a box in the van they were driving. Rather, they believed that the thirty or more boxes they were transporting in the van contained shoes, clothes, and other legitimate merchandise. If after considering all of the evidence in this case, you find that the government has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel and Adin Del Toro knew that there was over $10,000 of currency hidden in the van, then you must find them not guilty on all counts. Adin argues that, although the instructions given to the jury required it to find that he knowingly transported more than $10,000 in currency, the instructions did not adequately impart the possibility that he would be not guilty if someone else had placed the currency in the van and he had no knowledge of its presence. We disagree. The jury instructions for both counts included a requirement that Defendants knowingly transported over $10,000. The district court also instructed the jury that the United States had the burden of proving each charge beyond a reasonable doubt, that mere presence at the scene of the crime or mere knowledge that a crime is being committed is not sufficient unless... the defendant was a participant and not merely a knowing spectator. In fact, during deliberation, the jury sent a question to the judge that read: What if someone believes the Del Toro's knew about the money, however, also believe the prosecution did not prove it? This shows that the jury fully understood that they had to find that Defendants knew about the money. We hold that the instructions given by the district court made clear that Defendants could not be found guilty if the jury did not find that they had known they were carrying more than $10,000 in cash. The defense's theory was reasonably covered by other instructions.