Court Opinion

ID: 9557886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:59:27.692276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:39.408614
License: Public Domain

GRABER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I write separately to address an additional, alternative ground for affirmance not reached by the opinion: whether the *933district court erred by enforcing the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(a). Op. at 930 n. 2. In my view, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused Defendant’s proposed instruction on the ground that he had failed to make a “proper request” within the meaning of Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 305, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981).
Rule 30(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Any party may request in writing that the court instruct the jury on the law as specified in the request. The request must be made at the close of the evidence or at any earlier time that the court reasonably sets. When the request is made, the requesting party must furnish a copy to every other party.
Pursuant to Rule 30(a), the district court here set a deadline of a week before trial for submission of proposed jury instructions in writing. Defendant did not object, and he has never argued that the date or the requirement of written proposals was unreasonable. Defendant submitted no written proposed jury instructions at any time.
At the close of evidence, the following colloquy occurred between the judge and Defendant’s counsel:
MR. SCOTT: Your Honor, the government has not proposed the instruction because the defendant, rather, has not testified. And I would ask that that — I believe that that is typically given, but that was not part of the proposed instructions, and I would just ask formally on the record that the court instruct the jury that they should not take that and hold that against him.
THE COURT: Counsel, I’m not going to do that.
MR. SCOTT: I understand.
THE COURT: You had the opportunity to submit instructions that you proposed. That’s what the rule [Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] requires. And the court would then have an opportunity to look at it in context and hear from the government concerning any objections it might have. I’m not going to make one up. I don’t think you need to be concerned. I really think that, from the instructions the court proposes to give, that his constitutional rights are protected. And I spent a good deal of time talking to them about it when they were being selected.
MR. SCOTT: I think that you have, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And I’m not going to deal with instructions unless they’re proposed to the court, provided according to the rules.
In short, Defendant’s proposed jury instruction was both untimely and in incorrect form. Citing the requirements of Rule 30, the district judge rejected Defendant’s request. In my view, the district court did not err.
The bare failure to give a Carter instruction is not itself error. It is only when the defendant makes a proper request that the trial court is obliged to give the instruction. The question, then, is whether the trial court constitutionally can impose reasonable restrictions on the form and timing of that request.1
*934Both Carter and James v. Kentucky, 466 U.S. 341, 104 S.Ct. 1830, 80 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984), strongly suggest that the defendant’s right to a Carter instruction does not trump reasonable procedural rules. The Court in Carter concluded:
The freedom of a defendant in a criminal trial to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in.the unfettered exercise of his own will is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and made applicable to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth. And the Constitution further guarantees that no adverse inferences are to be drawn from the exercise of that privilege. Just as adverse comment on a defendant’s silence cuts down on the privilege by making its assertion costly, the failure to limit the jurors’ speculation on the meaning of that silence, when the defendant makes a timely request that a prophylactic instruction be given, exacts an impermissible toll on the full and free exercise of the privilege. Accordingly, we hold that a state trial judge has the constitutional obligation, upon proper request, to minimize the danger that the jury will give evidentiary weight to a defendant’s failure to testify.
450 U.S. at 305, 101 S.Ct. 1112 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases added). In James, the entire issue the Court faced was whether the petitioner had proeedurally defaulted by requesting the instruction in incorrect form by using the term “admonition” rather than “instruction.” 466 U.S. at 342, 104 S.Ct. 1830. Although the Court concluded that, under Kentucky law, the procedural error was nonexistent, or slight at best, id. at 348-49, 104 S.Ct. 1830, its reasoning inescapably suggests that a more firmly rooted and clear-cut procedural rule would have changed the outcome.
Admittedly, Carter and James were appeals from state cases, and the issue was whether an independent and adequate state ground barred the federal courts from considering the constitutional claim. But if state courts are free to impose procedural requirements that defendants make a “proper request,” Carter, 450 U.S. at 305, 101 S.Ct. 1112, there is no principled reason why federal courts could not do the same. In fact, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do impose certain requirements, including that proposed instructions be submitted in timely fashion and in writing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 30(a).
Allowing district courts to impose reasonable procedural restrictions on requests for jury instructions (including a Carter instruction) makes sense. A contrary rule would mean that the district court would be at the mercy of a defendant, no matter when or how a request is made and no matter how reasonable the court’s directions. Defendant here complains that he did not submit the instruction because he was unsure before trial whether he would testify. Although the applicability of that argument in this particular case is doubtful,2 there still is no conflict with the district judge’s requirements: Defendant clearly could have submitted a conditional jury instruction, to be read if Defendant indeed invoked his right not to testify.
That reasonable restrictions may be imposed on the form and timing of a defendant’s request for a Carter instruction does not mean that district courts could reject reasonable requests by a defendant. Here, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Defen*935dant’s request. The request was untimely because it was made for the first time several days after the deadline and at the end of a three-day trial, and Defendant neither objected to the reasonableness of the deadline nor requested an extension. The request was not in the correct form because it was not submitted in writing. Defendant did not ask for time to submit the request in writing. To the contrary, even though the judge asked both counsel if they wished to proceed that afternoon or wait until the next day, Defendant’s counsel responded that he wished to proceed immediately. The request was not in the correct form also because it was only a general request for the instruction, not a succinct proposed instruction: “I would just ask formally on the record that the court instruct the jury that they should not take that and hold that against him.” The district court explained its reasons for rejecting that request, and Defendant acceded.
I emphasize that a district court might well abuse its discretion if it applied procedural requirements rigidly, even if the requirements were consistent with Rule 30. A mere technical failure or a slight untimeliness likely would not trump the strong reasons behind the constitutional right to the Carter instruction. But the several failures in this case and the wholly reasonable approach and explanations by the district court counsel against reversal.
I acknowledge that the Fifth Circuit reached a different conclusion in United States v. Eiland, 741 F.2d 738, 742 (5th Cir.1984):
[Defendant’s] objection to the omission of this charge had the same effect as a valid request for the instruction. We have cautioned against blindly applying the procedures for requesting or objecting instructions so as to create a “trap for the unwary.” United States v. Davis, 583 F.2d 190, 195 (5th Cir.1978). Eiland’s objection and the court’s response ... clearly preserved the defendant’s constitutional right to an instruction on his failure to testify.
(Footnote omitted.) But Eiland is factually distinguishable. In that case, the district court’s only stated reason for not including the instruction was that the court thought that the other instructions were sufficient. See id. at 742 n. 1 (“Well, I told [the jury] several times that the defendant is not required to prove his innocence, doesn’t have to produce any evidence at all. I think that is sufficient.”). On that point, the district court was wrong under Fifth Circuit precedent, and the Fifth Circuit reversed on that ground. Id. at 743. It appears that the defendant’s request in Eiland was timely and that the government did not argue that the defendant had violated Rule 30’s requirement that the proposed instruction be in writing. Here, moreover, the district court clearly explained the required procedures, so there was no “trap for the unwary.”
In conclusion, I agree fully with the opinion that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to give Defendant’s proposed instruction that was untimely, not in writing, not in precise form, and in violation of Rule 30(a).

. There is no doubt that the district court generally can impose such restrictions. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 30(a); United States v. Cunningham, 194 F.3d 1186, 1200 (11th Cir. 1999) (affirming the district court's denial of a proposed instruction because it was not submitted in writing); United States v. Johnson, 713 F.2d 633, 652-53 (11th Cir.1983) (same: because the request was untimely); United States v. Lustig, 555 F.2d 737, 750-51 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding that any jury instruction error by the district court was "excusable in light of [the defendant's] tardiness” in sub-*934milting jury instructions after the close of evidence rather than five days before trial, as required by local rule).

. Defendant submitted no proposed jury instructions, so it is questionable whether he truly mulled over the possibility of submitting this one particular instruction.