Opinion ID: 3063015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Double Jeopardy Jury Instruction

Text: Appellant argues that the district court erred when, at the government’s request, the court instructed the jury that her Austrian conviction did not bar the instant prosecution. She asserts that the instruction prejudiced her because it improperly indicated the court’s endorsement or approval of the government’s prosecution. We review the legal correctness of a jury instruction de novo, but defer to the district court on questions of phrasing absent an abuse of discretion. United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). We find nothing incorrect about the instruction; it reflected the correct legal standard. Nor do we find anything about the court’s phrasing of the double jeopardy issue that could be considered confusing. Appellant’s convictions are, accordingly, AFFIRMED. 11