Court Opinion

ID: 2964858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:16.659177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:52.023959
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                              _________________________
          No. 97-1080
                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                    WILLIAM CHEN,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                              _________________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                   [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                              _________________________
                                       Before
                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                            Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,
                             and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                              _________________________
               Robert L. Sheketoff
                                 , with whom 
                                             Sheketoff & Homan
                                                              was on brief,
          for appellant. 
               Kevin P. McGrath
                              , Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
          Donald  
                 K.  
                     Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
          appellee.
                              _________________________
                                   August 5, 1997
                              _________________________
          _______________
          *Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

           

                    Per 
                        Curiam. Having read the parties' briefs, listened
          carefully to the arguments of distinguished counsel, perused the
          trial transcript, and scrutinized the district court's charge to
          the jury, we are persuaded that the instructions adequately covered
          the gist of the defendant's requests. To be sure, the precise
          tenor of jury instructions will vary from judge to judge, and the
          instructions in this instance were not quite what the defendant
          wanted in certain respects. Still, these discrepancies constituted
          variations in shading only, and did not affect the substance of the
          legal principles conveyed by the judge to the jurors. Indeed, the
          charge as given was in some ways more favorable than that which the
          defendant requested. 
                    We need go no further: it is axiomatic in this circuit,
          as elsewhere, that the trial judge may put legal principles into
          his or her own words, without any obligation to parrot language
          that the defendant prefers, as long as the instructions as given
          cover the substance of the applicable law in an even-handed manner.
          See, e.g., United 
                            States v. DeStefano, 59 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.
          1995); 
                United States
                              v. 
                                 McGill, 953 F.2d 10, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1992);
          United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 1004 (1st Cir. 1987).
                    Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                                          3