Opinion ID: 447993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unified Scheme Instruction

Text: 17 In United States v. Mastelotto, we overturned a mail fraud conviction because the district court failed to instruct the jury that: (1) it must unanimously find the existence of a single scheme to defraud, and (2) the single scheme to defraud must not be substantially different from the scheme charged in the indictment. 717 F.2d 1238, 1249-51 (9th Cir.1983). The district court in this case instructed the jury as follows: 18 The indictment alleges the existence of a scheme to defraud. Each of the jurors must find the defendant guilty of participation in the same single scheme to defraud and that the scheme to defraud in which the defendant is found to have participated is the same scheme as the overall fraudulent scheme alleged in the indictment. 19 The jury was also instructed that it could not convict a defendant unless the defendant was a willing and active participant in the particular scheme to defraud alleged in the indictment. These instructions were a full and accurate statement of the law. 20 The defendants claim, however, that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury regarding the existence of multiple schemes. The defendants assert that the existence of multiple schemes was a valid theory of defense that required a jury instruction. The jury instruction quoted above, however, covered this theory of defense. If the jury did not find a single scheme to defraud, it could not have convicted the defendants. 4 In essence, the defendants are objecting to the manner in which the district court formulated the instruction. Accordingly, this argument is without merit. 5 21