Opinion ID: 582485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Jury Instructions on Counts 13 and 14

Text: 45 Benary challenges the jury instructions on counts 13 and 14, but because he did not do so at trial, we review only for plain error. United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir.1989). 46 Benary takes issue with the instruction that [k]nowledge that the stock was unregistered may be found from circumstances that would convince an average ordinary person. Viewed as a whole, however, the jury instructions do not  'water[ ] down' the Government's burden of persuasion on the element of knowledge. United States v. Eaglin, 571 F.2d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 906 (1978). The court gave the jury a proper 'deliberate ignorance' instruction, id., as well as instructions focusing on intentional conduct. The court's ordinary person instruction does not require reversal. See United States v. Bordallo, 857 F.2d 519, 527 (9th Cir.1988) ( '[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.' ) (quoting United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674 (1975)), amended on other grounds, 872 F.2d 334 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 818 (1989). 47 Benary also challenges the absence of a specific unanimity instruction. A specific unanimity instruction is sometimes required where  'there is a genuine possibility of jury confusion or that a conviction may occur as the result of different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts....' However, in the ordinary case, a general instruction that the verdict must be unanimous will be sufficient to protect the defendant's rights. United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314, 1319 (9th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Echeverry, 719 F.2d 974, 975 (9th Cir.1983)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 969 (1989). In this case, the court not only gave such a general unanimity instruction, but instructed the jury that it must find that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy. The indictment was not sufficiently ambiguous or the case sufficiently complex to warrant a specific unanimity instruction and the failure to give one was not plain error.