WPC er\Q~cBFCo@P'~0t[>Y\SX,ez2|ٟ EF2u\wM)V4*V-Sc*[ )ÃTD wN8UyZ/>TYLYIqĺR2;,Ta "[=$M*:EQ&H `^\2Ú0oycN8xZfH)㒨/F<$,C{Z%ME# pÆ.1ݕ>Ħ,_bHI*;$Gĥ>tm38.7$|y_OyU*yZy^ zwz4!z5zDz mFz 00]z 0<z 0z 0>{ 0v{ 0`;| 0`| 0`| 0.[} 0`} 08} 0!~~NZNZZ 02c 0 0:_ 0Y 0_ 0Q 08) 0a B* D/ D+> 0i D/ 0 06 0 0: 0^0 0< 1eʏU6/ 1ue 72ڐ/) Z5/? D5Α BZ ASz͒ 0V 0V 0D?NZ 0#Uߔ 0<4ZpNʕZ̕ 0V&&UN||U@ʖʖb bl]Η]+aU@c))]]ZFFFFFFFFFN 0U|  s]}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}]ڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛڛ]7]]]N]c]kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk]ȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞȞ 0~%%% 0D|  c  m  w         Ǡ  Ѡ  ۠          !  ++  555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????]]]z]ע]4444|| |]|bb}ޥޥ^[|v5HP Color LaserJet CP3505 PCL 6 (USB)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   \  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEV@ Og@*3|x=U0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5 (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 58DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE LashleyWeatherdMcGraneRenfroSteeves WrayHuttoStalderOhler EvidDeckardBerrojoPiggieFundora i]nMadeoyMcMillanKandiel W]eCalderinRodriquezDelpitGrajalesMontoyaDickersonact[scrime[sMothershedHuddlestonCifuentesNicholsone[sCalvertMcMillianGarbettDanzeyMichelsonMonteleonecount[s CrimDanieledefendant[sname[s suasponteConleye]achBrutonnontestifyingGarrett HassElstad DiopLundrumWiesleLockhartGerberdingHykelCarseyRunge8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE,*CITE,KS*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4NV2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS <z:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7E(X7  ?!%2A`Arial?  S \  `&Times New RomanS7F(X7&  d dD)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7H(X7  ?!%2A`Arial?  S \  `&Times New RomanS7F(X7D)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8KS6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKS \  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Qi)'(lmlmarshall18DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE =>lmgp lmarshall1gporterWWWW)!dxdx d8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUEZ[\]VE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3$ !USUS.,  (.3$ !USUS.,  ($$   1  8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(-2$ !USUS.,  <:Default Para8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE8DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(.3$ !USUS.,  (9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman  X `*USUS.,  _  B(#6.18.1341 X `*USUS.,  _  B(#6.18.1320 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#7.02 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#7.04 W `*USUS.,  _l l C(#6.18.844* `(CG TimesScalable Y `*USUS.,  _A(#6.18.1001B S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#9.01 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.018DocumentManagement::ModifiedBooleanTRUE(-2$ !USUS.,   r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#2.08  S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.19 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.13 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.14 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.15 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.16 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.17 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.18 Y `*USUS.,  _!!G(#3.05  S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.21 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.22(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#3.10                  ! " # $ % w `*USUS.,  _rX@XXXB(#6.18.922A S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.20 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.09 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.10 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.11 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.12 r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#3.11 r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#2.02 r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#2.03 S `*USUS.,  _!!G(#2.04 r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#2.05 s `*USUS.,  _&C%XXb!b!F(#2.06A T `*USUS.,  _F!F!F(#2.06B r `*USUS.,  _&C%XX!!G(#2.07 l ($USUS.,    1    _Congressamended31U.S.C.5322(a)toeliminatetheapplicabilityoftheprovisions  mensrearequirementtooffensescommittedundersection5324,therebysupercedingbystatute  thenarrowholdinginRatzlaf. !USUS.,  _8g@gXXdd8y  @| |  %   2.01DUTIESOFJURYRECESSES       Duringthisrecess,andeveryotherrecess,youmustnotdiscussthiscasewithanyone,  includingtheotherjurors,membersofyourfamily,peopleinvolvedinthetrial,oranyoneelse. : Donotallowanyonetodiscussthecasewithyouorwithinyourhearing.Onlyyouhavebeen L  chosenasjurorsinthiscase,andonlyyouhavesworntoupholdthelaw!nooneelsehasbeen   chosentodothis.Youshouldnoteventalkamongyourselvesaboutthecasebeforeyouhave  `  heardalltheevidenceandthecasehasbeensubmittedtoyoubymefordeliberations,becauseit r   mayaffectyourfinaldecision.Ifanyonetriestotalktoyouaboutthecase,pleaseletmeknow $  aboutitimmediately. 6    WhenIsay youmustnotdiscussthecasewithanyone,Ialsomeandonotemail,send   textmessages,_blog_Ԁorengageinanyotherformofwritten,oralorelectroniccommunication,asI J instructedyoubefore. \   [Donotreadanynewspaperorotherwrittenaccount,watchanytelevisedaccount,or  listentoanyradioprogramaboutthistrial.DonotconductanyInternetresearchorconsultwith  p anyothersourcesaboutthiscase,thepeopleinvolvedinthecase,oritsgeneralsubjectmatter.  Youmustkeepyourmindopenandfreeofoutsideinformation.Onlyinthiswaywillyoube 4 abletodecidethecasefairly,basedsolelyonthetestimony,evidencepresentedinthis F  courtroom,andmyinstructionsonthelaw.Ifyoudecidethiscaseonanythingelse,youwill " havedoneaninjustice.Itwouldbeaviolationofyouroathforyoutobaseyourdecisionon  Z$ somereportersvieworopinion,oruponotherinformationyouacquireoutsidethecourtroom.It l& isveryimportantthatyoufollowtheseinstructions.]  (   Imaynotrepeatthesethingstoyoubeforeeveryrecess,butkeeptheminmind 0"* throughoutthetrial.1 #,  @$ NotesonUse  $D .   1.Thislanguageshouldbeusedforovernightandweekendrecesses,butmaybeomitted V&!0 forsubsequentbreaksduringtrial.  B'"1 ;y @ %   2.02STIPULATEDTESTIMONY t      Thegovernmentandthedefendant[s]havestipulated-thatis,theyhaveagreed-thatif  (nameofwitness)werecalledasawitness[he][she]wouldtestifyinthewaycounselhasjust : stated.Youshouldacceptthatasbeing(nameofwitness)'stestimony,justasifithadbeengiven L  hereincourtfromthewitnessstand.    @55! CommitteeComments   `    Thereisadifferencebetweenstipulatingthatawitnesswouldgivecertaintestimony,and r   stipulatingthatcertainfactsareestablished.UnitedStatesv.Lambert,604F.2d594,595(8th ^  Cir.1979).Instruction2.03,infra,coversstipulationsoffacts.Byenteringintoastipulationas J  toawitness'stestimony,callingthatpersonasawitnessisavoided.Osbornev.UnitedStates, 6  351F.2d111,120(8thCir.1965). "r    Wherethereisstipulationastotestimony,thepartiesmaycontestthetruthoraccuracyof   thattestimony.SeeUnitedStatesv.Garcia,593F.2d77,79(8thCir.1979).Insuchasituation, p itmaybeappropriatetoinstructthejuryonthefactualareasthatremaindisputed.See,e.g., \ UnitedStatesv.Renfro,600F.2d55,59(6thCir.1979),foranexampleofsuchaninstruction H whereonlyauthenticitywasstipulated.  4 >; @,, %   2.03STIPULATEDFACTS       Thegovernment[prosecutor]andthedefendant[s]havestipulated!thatis,theyhave  agreed!thatcertainfactsareascounselhavejuststated.Youmustthereforetreatthosefactsas : havingbeenproved. L   & & @55! CommitteeComments      Whenfactsarestipulated,itisnoterrorforthecourttosoinstruct.UnitedStatesv.Sims,  `  529F.2d10,11(8thCir.1976).See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Steeves,525F.2d33,35(8thCir.  L  '& y1975).Whenthepartiesstipulatetoanelementofanoffense,itisnoterrortoinstructthejuryas  8  tothatfact."Stipulationsoffactfairlyenteredintoarecontrollingandconclusiveandcourtsare $  boundtoenforcethem."Osbornev.UnitedStates,351F.2d111,120(8thCir.1965).     Acasemaybesubmittedonanagreedstatementoffactsandthedefendantmayraiseany "r  defensesbystipulation.Suchapractice,wheretheessentialfactsinthecaseareuncontested,has ^  beenapprovedasapracticalandexpeditiousprocedure.UnitedStatesv.Wray,608F.2d722, J 724(8thCir.1979).Whenfactswhichtendtoestablishguiltaresubmittedonstipulation,the 6 courtmustdeterminewhethertheconsequencesoftheadmissionsareunderstoodbythe " defendantandwhetherheconsentedtothem.Coxv.Hutto,589F.2d394,396(8thCir.1979)  (stipulationtopriorconvictionsinhabitualoffenderaction).Anextensiveexaminationbefore  entryofaguiltypleaunderRule11isordinarilynotrequired.UnitedStatesv.Stalder,696F.2d  59,62(8thCir.1982).However,whenastipulationisenteredthatleavesnofacttobetried,the  courtshoulddeterminethatthestipulationwasvoluntarilyandintelligentlyenteredinto,andthat n thedefendantknewandunderstoodtheconsequencesofthestipulation.Id. Z   Byagreeingtoastipulation,adefendantwaivesanyrighttoargueerroronappeal.   UnitedStatesv.Hawkins,215F.3d858,860(8thCir.2000)(citingOhlerv.UnitedStates,529  U.S.753,756(2000)(partyintroducingevidencecannotcomplainonappealthattheevidence  waserroneouslyadmitted)).   @> @L L  %   2.04JUDICIALNOTICE(Fed.R.Evid.201) tD     Eventhoughnoevidencehasbeenintroducedaboutit,Ihavedecidedtoacceptasproved  thefactthat(insertfactnoticed).Ibelievethisfact[isofsuchcommonknowledge][canbeso : accuratelyandeasilydeterminedfrom(nameaccuratesource)]thatitcannotreasonablybe L  disputed.Youmaythereforetreatthisfactasproved,eventhoughnoevidencewasbroughtout   onthepoint.Aswithanyfact,however,thefinaldecisionwhetherornottoacceptitisforyou  `  tomakeandyouarenotrequiredtoagreewithme. r    & N @55! CommitteeComments  $  'Nr!  ThekindsoffactswhichmaybejudiciallynoticedaresetoutinFed.R.Evid.201(b). 6    Aninstructionregardingjudicialnoticeisappropriatelygivenatthetimenoticeistaken.   InUnitedStatesv.Deckard,816F.2d426(8thCir.1987),thejurywasinstructedatthetime   noticewastakenthatitwouldbeinstructedatthecloseofthecaseonwhattodowithfacts p judiciallynoticed.Thatpartofthefinalchargereadasfollows: \ 0  Whenthecourtdeclaresitwilltakejudicialnoticeofsomefactorevent,youmayaccept  thecourt'sdeclarationasevidence,andregardasprovedthefactoreventwhichhasbeen  judiciallynoticed,butyouarenotrequiredtodososinceyouarethesolejudgeofthe  facts.(#(# 816F.2dat428. 4   Fed.R.Evid.201(g)requiresthatthejuryinacriminalcasebeinstructedthatitisnot F requiredtoacceptasconclusiveanyfactsonoticed.However,failuretosoinstructdoesnotrise 2 tothelevelofplainerrorifthedefendantisnotprejudiced.UnitedStatesv.Berrojo,628F.2d n  368,370(5thCir.1980);UnitedStatesv.Piggie,622F.2d486,488(10thCir.1980).  Z!   Courts"maytakejudicialnoticeofeitherlegislativeoradjudicativefacts,[but]only l# noticeofthelatterissubjecttothestricturesofRule201.AlthoughRule201isfrequently X $ (albeiterroneously)citedincasesthatinvolvejudicialnoticeoflegislativefacts,seeII[Kenneth D!% C.]Davis&[RichardJ.]Pierce,Jr.,AdministrativeLawTreatise10.6at155(3ded.1994), 0"& [courts]recognizetheimportanceofthisdistinctionanditsclearbasisinRule201(a)andthe #l' advisorynotethereon."UnitedStatesv.HernandezFundora,58F.3d802,812(2dCir.1995). $X( Whilethefederalruleprovides,inpart,that"[i]nacriminalcase,thecourtshallinstructthejury $D ) thatitmay,butisnotrequiredto,acceptasconclusiveanyfactjudiciallynoticed,"therule %0!* extendsonlytoadjudicative,notlegislativefacts.UnitedStatesv.Gould,536F.2d216(8thCir. &"+ 1976);UnitedStatesv.Bowers,660F.2d527(5thCir.1981)(percuriam)."Noruledealswith '#, judicialnoticeof'legislative'facts.'"UnitedStatesv.HernandezFundora,58F.3dat811. (#-   Legislativefactsareestablishedtruths,factsorpronouncementsthatdonotchangefrom *V%/ casetocasebutapplyuniversally,whileadjudicativefactsarethosedevelopedinaparticular *B&0 case.Ifthecourtreachesa"conclusionthroughanexerciseinstatutoryinterpretation"abouta +.'1 particularissue,theconclusionisalegislativefactthatneednotbesubmittedtothejury.United  Statesv.Gould,536F.2dat220(instructiontojurythatitcoulddisregardthejudiciallynoticed  factthatcocainehydrochloridewasascheduleIIcontrolledsubstancewouldhavebeen  inappropriate);UnitedStatesv.HernandezFundora,58F.3dat810(resolutionofterritorial t jurisdictionissuerequiredthedeterminationoflegislativefactswiththeresultthatRule201(g) ` inapplicable);UnitedStatesv.Madeoy,912F.2d1486,1494(D.C.Cir.1990)("publicofficial" L  forpurposesofbriberystatuteisaquestionoflawforthecourt);UnitedStatesv.Anderson,782 8  F.2d908,917(11thCir.1986)(factthatviolationofGeorgiaarsonstatuteisafelonyforRICO $ t purposesisalegislativefactthatcanbejudiciallynoticedbutnotinstructedon).   `  A@@~ ~  %   2.05WIRETAPOROTHERRECORDEDEVIDENCE es2      [You[areabouttohear][haveheard]recordingsofconversations.Theseconversations  werelegallyrecorded,andyoumayconsidertherecordingsjustlikeanyotherevidence.] : @55! CommitteeComments  L    TheCommitteerecommendsthatthisinstructionbegivenonlyifaquestionastothe   proprietyoftherecordinghasbeenraisedinthejury'spresence.      Notethatwhenatranscriptisofferedandtherecordingisavailable,therecording,rather  L  thanthetranscript,controls.SeeFed.R.Evid.1002.UnitedStatesv.Martinez,951F.2d887,  8  889(8thCir.1991).Thetrialcourtdidnoterrinpermittingthejurytolistentoarecording, $  whichwasarguablyunintelligible,andfollowalongwiththetranscript,whenthecourtinstructed   thejurythatonlytherecordingandnotthetranscriptwastobeconsideredwhenweighingthe   evidence.ThisiscoveredinInstruction2.06A,infra.Insituationswhereatranscriptisutilized   togetherwiththerecording,Instruction2.06Ashouldbegivenimmediatelyafterthisinstruction.     InUnitedStatesv.McMillan,508F.2d101(8thCir.1974),theCourtsetforththe 6 foundationrequirementsforuseofrecordingsasevidence.TheMcMillanfoundation " requirementsaredirectedtothegovernment'suseofrecordingequipment,butnottoarecording  foundinadefendant'spossession.UnitedStatesv.O'Connell,841F.2d1408(8thCir.1988);  UnitedStatesv.Kandiel,865F.2d967(8thCir.1989).Iftherequirementsaresatisfied,a  recordingmaybeadmittedevenifitispoorqualityaslongasthequalityoftherecordingdoes  notcallintoquestionthetrustworthinessoftherecording.UnitedStatesv.Munoz,324F.3d987, n 992(8thCir.2003);cf.UnitedStatesv.Le,272F.3d530,532(8thCir.2001).Itiswithinthetrial Z courtsdiscretiontoexcludearecordingwhenitsqualityrendersituntrustworthy.  F  CA@  %   2.06ATRANSCRIPTOFRECORDEDCONVERSATION =     Asyouhave[also]heard,thereisatranscriptoftherecording[Ijustmentioned][youare  abouttohear].Thattranscriptalsoundertakestoidentifythespeakersengagedinthe : conversation. L    Thetranscriptisforthelimitedpurposeofhelpingyoufollowtheconversationasyou   listentotherecording,andalsotohelpyoukeeptrackofthespeakers.Differencesinmeaning  `  betweenwhatyouhearintherecordingandreadinthetranscriptmaybecausedbysuchthings r   astheinflectioninaspeaker'svoice.Itiswhatyouhear,however,andnotwhatyouread,thatis $  theevidence. 6    [Whetherthetranscriptcorrectlyorincorrectlyreflectstheconversationortheidentityof   thespeakersisentirelyforyoutodecidebaseduponwhatyouhearontherecordingandwhat J youhaveheardhereaboutthepreparationofthetranscript,anduponyourownexaminationof \ thetranscriptinrelationtowhatyouhearontherecording.Ifyoudecidethatthetranscriptisin  anyrespectincorrectorunreliable,youshoulddisregardittothatextent.]1  p  @$ NotesonUse     1.Thisparagraphshouldbegivenifthepartiesdonotstipulatetothetranscript.In 4 UnitedStatesv.Gonzalez,365F.3d656,660(8thCir.2004),thecourtsaid: [W]ebelievethat   wheneverthepartiesintendtointroduceatranscriptattrial,theyshouldfirsttrytoproducean    officialorstipulatedtranscript,onewhichsatisfiesallsides,UnitedStatesv.Cruz,765F.2d ! 1020,1023(11thCir.1985)(quotingUnitedStatesv.Wilson,578F.2d67,6970(5thCir.1978)). " Iftheyareunabletodoso,theneachsideshouldproduceitsownversionofatranscriptorits # ownversionofthedisputedportions.Inaddition,eachsidemayputonevidencesupportingthe l$ accuracyofitsversionorchallengingtheaccuracyoftheothersidesversion.Id.(quoting X % Wilson,578F.2dat6970).IntheopinionoftheCommittee,onetranscriptwithbracketed D!& alternativescanalsobeusedtoaidthejurywherethedisputeonlyinvolvesshortdisagreements. 0"' & & @55! CommitteeComments  #)   SeegenerallyUnitedStatesv.McMillan,508F.2d101(8thCir.1974)(specifiesthe $D + proceduresforuseoftranscriptsattrial).UnitedStatesv.CalderinRodriquez,244F.3d979, %0!, '&#6H987(8thCir.2001),heldthattranscriptswhichprovidevoiceidentificationanddateheadings &"- wereproperlyadmitted. '#.   Ajurymayusetranscriptsofrecordedconversationsduringtrialanddeliberations. )j$0 UnitedStatesv.Delpit,94F.3d1134,114748(8thCir.1996)(citing,interalia,UnitedStatesv. *V%1 Byrne,83F.3d984,990(8thCir.1996),holdingthatitis wellsettledthatthejurymayuse *B&2 transcriptsofwiretappedconversationsduringtrialanddeliberations);seealsoUnitedStatesv. +.'3 Foster,815F.2d1200,1203(8thCir.1987),holdingthatitwasnoterrorforthetrialcourtto  permitthetranscriptstobesenttothejuryduringdeliberationswhenthetranscriptswere  admittedintoevidencewithoutobjection,andthejurywasinstructedthattherecordingis  controlling.Iftheaccuracyofthetranscripthasbeenstipulated,thetranscriptmaybeadmitted t intoevidencewithoutlimitinginstructions.SeeUnitedStatesv.Crane,632F.2d663,664(6th ` Cir.1980). L    Thetrialcourthasbroaddiscretionintheuseoftranscripts.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.   GrajalesMontoya,117F.3d356,367(8thCir.1997),holdingthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseits   discretionbyadmittingtranscriptsofcertaintranslationsofrecordedconversationsinSpanish    andnotadmittingtherecordingsthemselves.InUnitedStatesv.Delpit,94F.3d1134,1147(8th r   Cir.1996),thecourthelditwasnoterrorforthetrialcourttoallowthejurytousethetranscripts ^  ofwiretappedconversationsduringtrialanddeliberationswhichincludedthegovernments J  interpretationandtranslation,inbrackets,ofpigLatincodesusedinrecordings.  6   EC@   %   2.06BTRANSCRIPTOFFOREIGNLANGUAGE;  @//RECORDEDCONVERSATION IORԀ1     Theexhibitsadmittedduringthetrialincludedrecordingsofconversationsinthe t _______language.YouwerealsogivenEnglishtranscriptsofthoseconversations.The & transcriptswereprepared[bythegovernment]sothatyoucanunderstandtherecordings. 8  Whetheratranscriptisanaccuratetranslation,inwholeorinpart,isforyoutodecide.You    shouldnotrelyinanywayonanyknowledgeyoumayhaveofthelanguagespokenonthe  L  recording;yourconsiderationofthetranscriptsshouldbebasedontheevidenceintroducedinthe ^  trial.2     Inconsideringwhetheratranscriptisaccurate,youshouldconsiderthetestimony "r  presentedtoyouregardinghow,andbywhom,thetranscriptwasmade.Youmayconsiderthe   knowledge,training,andexperienceofthetranslator,aswellasthenatureoftheconversation 6 andthereasonablenessofthetranslationinlightofalltheevidenceinthecase. H  & & @$ NotesonUse     1.Thisinstructionshouldbegivenifthepartiesdonotstipulatetothetranscript.In  \ UnitedStatesv.Gonzalez,365F.3d656,660(8thCir.2004),thecourtencouragedthepartiesto H '&Wproduceanofficialorstipulatedtranscript,whichsatisfiesallsides.Iftheyareunabletodoso, 4  theneachsideshouldproduceitsownversionofatranscriptoritsownversionofthedisputed   portions.Inaddition,eachsidemayputonevidencesupportingtheaccuracyofitsversionor   challengingtheaccuracyoftheothersidesversion.(quotingUnitedStatesv.Wilson,578F.2d   67,6970(5thCir.1978)).IntheopinionoftheCommittee,onetranscriptwithbracketed ! alternativescanalsobeusedtoaidthejurywherethedisputeonlyinvolvesshortdisagreements. "   2.JurorsshouldbeinstructedtorelyonlyontheEnglishtranslation,notontheirown 2$ knowledgeoftheforeignlanguage.UnitedStatesv.Gonzalez,365F.3d656,66162(8thCir.  % 2004).ThecourtcitedwithapprovaltheSeventhCircuitFederalCriminalJuryInstruction ! & 3.18,andencourageddistrictcourtsto useaninstructionsimilartoitwhenintroducingan "' Englishtranscriptofdialoguethatoriginallywasspokeninanotherlanguage.Id.at662.  #( FE @l l  %   2.07STATEMENTBYDEFENDANT ^     Youhaveheardtestimonythat[thedefendant][defendant(name)]madeastatementto  (nameofpersonoragency).Itisforyoutodecide: :   First,whether[thedefendant][defendant(name)]madethestatement;and L    Second,ifso,howmuchweightyoushouldgivetoit.1     [Inmakingthesetwodecisionsyoushouldconsideralloftheevidence,includingthe  `  circumstancesunderwhichthestatementmayhavebeenmade.]2 r    &  @$ NotesonUse  $    1.Inamultidefendanttrial,thisinstructionshouldbefollowedbyInstruction2.15, 6  infra,unlessthestatementwasmadeduringthecourseofaconspiracyorwasotherwise "r  adoptive. ^  '~a  2.Usethissentence,ifappropriate. p &  @55! CommitteeComments  "   Seegenerally18U.S.C.3501andUnitedStatesv.Dickerson,530U.S.428(2000). 4 ')c  Theinstructionusestheword"statement"inpreferencetotheword"confession."Notall  statementsare"confessions,"particularlyfromalayperson'spointofview.    Pursuantto18U.S.C.3501(a),thetrialjudgemustfirstmakeadeterminationastothe 4 voluntarinessofthestatement(includingcompliancewithapplicableMirandarequirements),   outsidethepresenceofthejury.Thismay,ofcourse,bedoneeitherpretrialoroutofthejury's   presenceduringtrial.Ifdoneduringtrial,noreferencetothestatementshouldbemadeinthe   jury'spresenceunlessanduntilthetrialjudgehasmadeadeterminationthatthestatementis ! admissible.Ifsuchadeterminationismade,thetrialjudgeshouldthenpermitthejurytohear " evidenceontheissueofvoluntarinessandgivethepresentinstruction.Thejuryshouldnotbe l# advisedthatthetrialjudgehasmadeanindependentdeterminationthatthestatementwas X $ voluntary.UnitedStatesv.StandingSoldier,538F.2d196,203(8thCir.1976);UnitedStatesv. D!% BearKiller,534F.2d1253,1258-59(8thCir.1976).TheCommitteeconcludesthatitisnot 0"& necessarytoinstructthejurywithrespecttothevariousspecificfactorsenumeratedin18U.S.C. #l' 3501(b). $X(   Thedefendantmayintroduceevidenceofthecircumstancesinwhichthestatementwas j% * made.Cranev.Kentucky,476U.S.683(1986);UnitedStatesv.BlueHorse,856F.2d1037, V&!+ 1039n.3(8thCir.1988). B'",   Ifthevoluntarinessofthestatementisnotanissue,thedefendantisnotentitledtothis (#. instruction.BlueHorse,856F.2dat1039. )$/   Eventhoughthedefendant'sfailuretorequestaninstructionsuchasthisonemaybea *B&1 waiverofanyerrorinthematter,seeUnitedStatesv._Houle_,620F.2d164,166(8thCir.1980), +.'2 theCommitteestronglyrecommendsthatifvoluntarinessisanissue,theinstructionbegiven  evenabsentarequest.    "Informal"voluntarystatements-thatis,inthelanguageof18U.S.C.3501(d),those N made"withoutinterrogationbyanyone,oratanytimeatwhichtheperson...wasnotunder : arrestorotherdetention"-donotrequireanyinstruction.SeeUnitedStatesv._Houle_,620F.2dat & 166.     @&& F %   2.08DEFENDANT'SPRIORSIMILARACTSWhereIntroducedto  @K K ProveanIssueOtherThanIdentity(Fed.R.Evid.404(b)) nto     You[areabouttohear][haveheard]evidencethatthedefendant(describeevidencethe t juryisabouttohearorhasheard).Youmayconsiderthisevidenceonlyifyou[unanimously] & finditismorelikelytruethannottrue.Thisisalowerstandardthanproofbeyondareasonable 8  doubt.Itisinsteadproofbythegreaterweightoftheevidence.Ifyoufindthatthisevidenceof    otheractsisprovedbythegreaterweightoftheevidence,youmayconsiderittohelpyoudecide  L  (describepurposeunder404(b)forwhichevidencehasbeenadmitted.)1Youshouldgiveitthe ^  weightandvalueyoubelieveitisentitledtoreceive.Youmustdisregarditunlessyoufinditis   provedbythegreaterweightoftheevidence.2 "r    Remember,evenifyoufindthatthedefendantmayhavecommitted[a]similar[act]   [acts]inthepast,thisisnotevidencethat[he][she]committedsuchanactinthiscase.Youmay 6 notconvictapersonsimplybecauseyoubelieve[he][she]mayhavecommitted[a]similaract[s] H inthepast.Thedefendantisontrialonlyforthecrime[s]charged,andyoumayconsiderthe  evidenceofsimilaracts[he][she]committedinthepastonlyontheissueof(stateproper  \ purposeunder404(b),e.g.,intent,knowledge,motive).3 n  & & @$NotesonUse      1.Usecareinframingthelanguagetobeusedinspecifyingthepurposeforwhichthe 2! evidencecanbeused.SeeUnitedStatesv.Mothershed,859F.2d585,588-89(8thCir.1988) n" (court'&wshouldspecifywhichcomponentofRule404(b)thepriorsimilaractevidenceisrelevant  Z# toandexplaintherelationshipbetweentheprioractsandproofofthatpropercomponent). F$   2.Seegenerally,UnitedStatesv.Frazier,280F.3d835,846(8thCir.2002). X &   3.Thisparagraphshouldbegivenonlyuponrequestofthedefendant.Thisportionof ! ( theinstructionexplainsthatpriorsimilaractevidenceisnotadmissibletoprovepropensityto ") commitcrime,andthedefendantmaywantthejurysoinstructed.Ontheotherhand,thisportion #* oftheinstructionrepeatsreferencetotheprioract[s].Thetrade-offbetweenexplanationand ~$+ repetitionshouldbemadebythedefendantinthefirstinstance. j% , @55! CommitteeComments  &".   SeegenerallyFed.R.Evid.404(b).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Felix,867F.2d1068,1075 .(~#0 (8thCir.1989)(courtsatisfiedthatearlier,butnearlyidentical,versionofthisinstructionwas )j$1 correctasgiven).SeealsoIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimiting *V%2 instructions. *B&3   TheSupremeCourt,inHuddlestonv.UnitedStates,485U.S.681,691(1988),  acknowledgedtheunfairprejudicethatcanarisefromtheadmissionofsimilaractevidenceand  notedthatsuchprejudicecouldbedealtwith,inpart,throughalimitinginstruction.Suchan  instructionshouldbegivenwhenrequested. t   Prioractevidenceisadmissiblewhen1)itisrelevanttoamaterialissueinquestionother & thanthecharacterofthedefendant,2)theactissimilarinkindandreasonablycloseintimeto   thecrimecharged,3)thereissufficientevidencetosupportafindingbythejurythatthe   defendantcommittedtheprioract,and4)thepotentialunfairprejudicedoesnotsubstantially   outweightheprobativevalueoftheevidence.UnitedStatesv.Anderson,879F.2d369,378(8th    Cir.1989);UnitedStatesv.Marin-Cifuentes,866F.2d988,996(8thCir.1989).Thiscircuit r   followsaruleofinclusion,whereinsuchevidenceisadmissibleunlessittendstoproveonlythe ^  defendant'scriminaldisposition.E.g.,UnitedStatesv.Kandiel,865F.2d967,972(8thCir. J  1989);UnitedStatesv.Mothershed,859F.2dat589. 6    Whileotheractevidenceisgenerallyadmissibletoproveintent,knowledge,motive,etc.,   itisonlyadmissiblewheresuchanissueismaterialinthecase.Mothershed,859F.2dat   589-90;UnitedStatesv.Nichols,808F.2d660,663(8thCir.1987).InUnitedStatesv.Carroll, p 207F.3d465,467(8thCir.2000),thecourtstated, [i]nsomecircumstances,adefendantsprior \ badactsarepartofabroaderplanorschemerelevanttothechargedoffense....Evidenceof H pastactsmayalsobeadmitted...asdirectproofofachargedcrimethatincludesaplanor 4 schemeelement....Inothercircumstances...thepatternandcharacteristicsofthecrimesare  p sounusualanddistinctiveastobelikeasignature....Inthesecases,theevidencegoesto  \ identity....TheseplanandidentityusesofRule404(b)evidencearedistinctfromeach H other....(Emphasisadded.)SeealsoUnitedStatesv._LeCompte_,99F.3d274(8thCir.1996). 4 Whereadmissionofotheractevidenceissought,"theproponentoftheevidence[must]articulate   thebasisfortherelevancyoftheprioractevidenceand...thecourt[must]'specifywhich   componentsoftheruleformthebasisofitsrulingandwhy.'UnitedStatesv.Harvey,845F.2d  760,762(8thCir.1988)(emphasisadded)."UnitedStatesv.Johnson,879F.2d331,334n.2  (8thCir.1989).Otheractevidenceisadmissibleduringthegovernmentscaseinchiefwhere  thedefendantplanstopresentageneraldenialdefense,becausethedefendant,bypleadingnot l guilty,putsthegovernmenttoitsproofonallelementsofthechargedcrime.UnitedStatesv. X  Miller,974F.2d953,960(8thCir.1992);UnitedStatesv.Crouch,46F.3d871,875(8thCir. D!  1995).SeealsoUntiedStatesv.Carroll,207F.3d465(8thCir.2000).Foradiscussionofthe 0"! stringenttestwhichthedefendantmustmeettoremoveastateofmindissue,seeUnitedStates #l" v.Thomas,58F.3d1318,132122(8thCir.1995),andUnitedStatesv.Jenkins,7F.3d803, $X# 806-07(8thCir.1993)(Rule404(b)evidenceinadmissibletoshowintentduringrebuttalwhen $D $ thedefendantdeniedcommittingthecriminalact). %0!%   Thisinstructionisdesignedforuseonlyinthosesituationswheretheprioractsaretobe B'"' utilizedforoneormorepurposescoveredbyRule404(b),'suchasproofofmotive,opportunity, .(~#( intent,preparation,plan,knowledge,...orabsenceofmistakeoraccident...'butnotforproof )j$)  ofidentityorinsexualassaultorchildmolestationcases. *V%*   Thisinstructionshouldnotbeusedwhenthetheoryforadmittingtheevidenceistoshow   identity.Whentheevidenceistobeusedforthispurpose,useInstruction2.09,infra.This  instructionisalsonotappropriatewhenevidenceofsimilarcrimesisintroducedinsexualassault  andchildmolestationcases.ThosecasesarecoveredbyRules413and414,Fed.R.Evid., t whichallowevidenceofsimilarcrimestoshowthedefendantspropensitytocommitsuch ` crimesasevidencethatheorshedidcommitthecrimeforwhichthedefendantisontrial.Itis L  theopinionoftheCommitteethat,inanappropriatecase,evidenceotherwiseadmissibleunder 8  Rules413and414maybeexcludedunderRule403ifthedangerofunfairprejudiceor $ t confusionoftheissuessubstantiallyoutweighstheprobativevalueoftheevidence.  `   Ifthedefendant'spriorconvictionhasbeenadmittedunderRule609,adifferentlimiting r   instructionshouldbegiven.SeeInstruction2.16,infra;1AKevinF._OMalley_,etal.,FXXEDERAL#X@X\#,XX@ ^  J#X@X,#XX@URY#X@X#,XX@ԀP#X@X,A#XX@RACTICEAND#X@X#,XX@ԀI#X@X,Җ#XX@NSTRUCTIONS#X@X#,XX@:Criminal15.08(5thed.2000).  J  #X@X,c#8g@gXdgXXd8 @  %   2.09DEFENDANT'SPRIORSIMILARACTS  @: : WhereIntroducedtoProveIdentity(Fed.R.Evid.404(b)) uld     You[areabouttohear][haveheard]evidencethatthedefendantcommitted[anact] t [acts]similarto[theone][those]chargedinthiscase.Youmustnotconsiderthisevidenceto & decidewhetherthedefendantcommittedtheact[s]chargedinthiscase.Butyoumayusethis 8  evidenceforthelimitedpurposeofhelpingyoudecide(describemannerinwhichtheevidence    willbeusedtoproveidentity-e.g.,whetherthesimilaritybetweentheactspreviouslycommitted  L  andtheone[s]chargedinthiscasesuggeststhatthesamepersoncommittedallofthem).1 ^    [Youmayconsidertheevidenceoftheotheract[s]onlyifyoufindtheevidenceisproven   bythegreaterweightoftheevidence.Toprovesomethingbythegreaterweightoftheevidence "r  istoprovethatitismorelikelytruethannottrue.Thisisalowerstandardthanproofbeyonda   reasonabledoubt.Ifyoufindthattheevidenceofotheract[s]isnotprovenbythegreaterweight 6 oftheevidence,thenyoumustdisregardsuchevidence.]2 H   Thedefendantisontrialforthecrime[s]chargedandfor[that][those]crime[s]alone.  Youmaynotconvictapersonsimplybecauseyoubelieve[he][she]mayhavecommittedsome  \ act[s],evenbadact[s],inthepast.3 n  & & @$ NotesonUse      1.Thelanguagehereshouldspecifywhethertheevidenceistobeconsideredtoshowa 2! commonpattern,schemeorplanorforanotherpermissiblepurposerelatingtoproofoftheacts n" '&charged.  Z#   2.SeeNotesonUse2and3toInstruction2.08 l%   3.SeeNotesonUse2and3toInstruction2.08.  ' & N @55! CommitteeComments  0")   SeegenerallyFed.R.Evid.404(b).'N0"SeealsoIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra, #+ concerninglimitinginstructions. ~$,   Evidenceofpriorcrimesoractsmaybeadmissibleinsomecasestoprovethecrime %0!. charged.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Calvert,523F.2d895,905-07(8thCir.1975);UnitedStates &"/ v.Robbins,613F.2d688,692-95(8thCir.1979).Forexample,suchevidenceisadmissibleto '#0 proveidentitywhenthetheoryforadmittingtheevidenceistoshowacommonscheme,pattern (#1 orplanbetweentheprioractsandthepresentoffense.UnitedStatesv.McMillian,535F.2d )$2 1035,1038(8thCir.1976);UnitedStatesv.Davis,551F.2d233,234(8thCir.1977);United |*%3 Statesv.Weaver,565F.2d129,133-35(8thCir.1977);UnitedStatesv.Mays,822F.2d793,797 h+&4 (8thCir.1987).Suchevidenceisadmissiblewherethereisa"peculiarsimilarity"betweenthe  prioractsandthecrimecharged.UnitedStatesv.Garbett,867F.2d1132,1135(8thCir.1989).  Thisinstructionisnotappropriatewhenevidenceofsimilarcrimesisintroducedinsexual  assaultandchildmolestationcasescoveredbyRules413and414,Fed.R.Evid. t   Becausesimilaractevidencetendsnotonlytoprovethecommissionoftheactbutalso & hasatendencytoshowthedefendant'sbadorcriminalcharacter,undueprejudicemustbe   avoided.Thisinstruction,whichineffecttellsthejurytoconsidertheevidenceonlyontheissue   ofidentityandnotontheissueofcharacter,shouldbegivenonrequest.SeeUnitedStatesv.   Danzey,594F.2d905,914-15(2dCir.1979);seealsoUnitedStatesv.McMillian,535F.2dat    1038-39. r     Wheresimilaractevidencemaybeadmissiblebothontheissueofidentityandfor $  anotherproperpurpose,Instruction2.08,supra,andthisInstruction2.09mayneedtobeadapted   tomeettheparticularsituation.      @   %   2.10CROSS-EXAMINATIONOFDEFENDANT'S  @"CHARACTERWITNESS )ë     Youwillrecallthatafterwitness(name)testifiedaboutthedefendant's[reputationfor] t [characterfor][reputationandcharacterfor](insertcharactertraitcoveredbytestimony),the & prosecutoraskedthewitnesssomequestionsaboutwhether[he][she]knewthat(describein 8  brieftermsthesubjectofthecross-examinationonthecharactertrait,e.g.,thedefendantwas    convictedoffraudonanearlieroccasion).Thosequestionswereaskedonlytohelpyoudecideif  L  thewitnessreallyknewaboutthedefendant's[reputationfor][characterfor][reputationand ^  characterfor](insertcharactertraitcoveredbythetestimony).Theinformationdevelopedbythe   prosecutoronthatsubjectmaynotbeusedbyyouforanyotherpurpose. "r    Thatthedefendant[committed][mayhavecommitted](describecharactertrait,e.g.,   committedfraudonanearlieroccasion)isnotevidencethat[he][she]committedthecrime 6 chargedinthiscase. H  &  @55! CommitteeComments     SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions.  \ 'G  Foragoodtreatmentofthistopic,seeMichelsonv.UnitedStates,335U.S.469(1948); n UnitedStatesv.Monteleone,77F.3d1086,108990(8thCir.1996). Z   Althoughcharactertestimonyisusuallylimitedtothereputationofthedefendant,the    governmentmaychallengeadefendantscharacterwitnessbycrossexaminingthewitnessabout ! thewitnessknowledgeof relevantspecificinstancesofadefendantsconduct.UnitedStates " v.Monteleone,77F.3dat108990.Thistypeofcrossexaminationisdiscouraged,however, # becauseitisfraughtwithdangerandcouldformthebasisforamiscarriageofjustice.United l$ Statesv.Knapp,815F.2d1183,1186(8thCir.1989).Thegovernmentmayonlyusethistypeof X % crossexaminationiftworequirementsaremet:(1)agoodfaithfactualbasisfortheincidents, D!& whichmustbeofatypelikelytobeamatterofgeneralknowledgeinthecommunity;and(2)the 0"' incidentsmustberelevanttothecharactertraitatissue.UnitedStatesv.Monteleone,77F.3dat #l( 108990.Withrespecttocommunityreputationforacharactertrait,onlyreputationreasonably $X) contemporaneouswiththeactschargedisrelevant.Mullinsv.UnitedStates,487F.2d581,590 $D * (8thCir.1973).Cross-examinationmustbelimitedtotheparticularcharactertraitplacedin %0!+ issue.Michelsonv.UnitedStates,335U.S.at475-76.Cf.UnitedStatesv.Smith,32F.3d1291, &", 1295(8thCir.1994),inwhichthecourthelditwasharmlesserrortopermitcrossexaminationof '#- thedefendantscharacterwitnessonthedefendantspriormarijuanaconvictionwhenthejury (#. wasinstructedthatthegovernmentsquestionsandthewitnessresponseswereonlytobeused )$/ tochallengethecharacterwitnessknowledgeofthedefendantsreputation.  |*%0   @  %   2.11DISMISSAL,DURINGTRIAL,OFSOMECHARGES  @  AGAINSTSINGLEDEFENDANT R\     AtthebeginningofthetrialItoldyouthatthedefendantwasaccusedof(insertnumber) t differentcrimes:(Brieflydescribetheoffensesmentionedatthecommencementoftrial.)1Since & thetrialstarted,however,[one][two,etc.]ofthesecharges[has][have]beendisposedof,the 8  one(s)havingtodowith(describeoffensesdisposedof).2[Thatchargeis][Thosechargesare]    nolongerbeforeyou,andtheonlycrime[s]thatthedefendantischargedwithnow[is][are]  L  (describeremainingoffenses).Youshouldnotguessaboutorconcernyourselveswiththe ^  reasonforthisdisposition.Youarenottoconsiderthisfactwhendecidingifthe[government]   [prosecutor]hasproved,beyondareasonabledoubt,thecount[s]whichremain,whichare(list "r  remainingcount[s]).     [Iamstrikingtheevidencethat(describethestrickenevidence).Itisnolongerbefore 6 youandyoumaynotconsiderit.]3 H &  @$ NotesonUse     1.Ifoneormorecountsofthesameoffensehavebeendisposedofandothercountsof  \ thesameoffenseremain,thelanguageofthisinstructionshouldbemodified. H '  2.Insomecases,circumstancesmayrequireamorespecifictreatmentofthereasonsfor Z dismissal. F   3.Iftheevidenceremainsadmissible,thejurymaybesoinstructed.SeeUnitedStatesv. ! Kelley,152F.3d886,888(8thCir.1998)(citingwithapproval8thCir.ModelCrim.Jury " Instruction2.11). # &  @55! CommitteeComments  2%   SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions. D!' '  Suchaninstructionisappropriateonlyonrareoccasionsandshouldnotbegivenunless ") requestedbythedefendant.  #*   @  %   2.12DISPOSITION,DURINGTRIAL,OFALLCHARGES  @ AGAINSTONEORMORE_CODEFENDANT[S_] R     AtthebeginningofthetrialItoldyouthat(insertname[s])[was][were][a]defendant[s] t inthiscase.The_charge[s_]againstdefendant[s](insertname[s])[has][have]beendisposedof, & and[he][she][they][is][are]nolonger[a][defendant[s]inthiscase.Youshouldnotguess 8  aboutorconcernyourselveswiththereasonforthisdisposition.Youarenottoconsiderthisfact    whendecidingifthe[government][prosecutor]hasproved,beyondareasonabledoubt,[its][his]  L  [her]caseagainstdefendant[s](nameremainingdefendant[s]). ^    [Iamstrikingtheevidencethat(describestrickenevidence).Itisnolongerbeforeyou,   andyoumaynotbeconsiderit.]1 "r   @$ NotesonUse      1.Iftheevidenceremainsadmissible,thejurymaybesoinstructed.SeeUnitedStatesv. 6 Kelley,152F.3d886,888(8thCir.1998). " &  @55! CommitteeComments  4   SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions.  '4-  TheEighthCircuithasheldthatthetrialcourtproperlyinstructedajurythattheabsence H ofthe_codefendants_,whopledguiltyafteropeningstatementsduringtrial,shouldhaveno 4 bearinguponthecaseoftheremainingdefendant.Therefore,amistrialwasnotwarranteddueto   thepleasofthe_codefendants_.UnitedStatesv.Daniele,886F.2d1046,1055(8thCir.1989).     Ifaguiltypleaofacodefendantisbroughtintotrial,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,atrial n! courtmustensurethatitisnotbeingofferedassubstantiveevidenceofadefendantsguilt.One  Z" factorindeterminingwhetheradmissionofsuchevidenceisanabuseofatrialcourtsdiscretion F# iswhetheralimitinginstructionisgiven.UnitedStatesv.Jones,145F.3d959,963(8thCir. 2$ 1998).However,iftheintroductionoftheevidenceisinvitedbycounselorifdefensecounsel  % requestsnolimitinginstruction,failuretogivealimitinginstructionmaynotconstituteplain ! & error.Id.;UnitedStatesv.Francisco,410F.2d1283,1288-89(8thCir.1969).  "' Y  @ %   2.13DISPOSITION,DURINGTRIAL,OFONEORMOREBUTLESS  @z z THANALLCHARGESAGAINSTTHE_CODEFENDANT[S_] R     AtthebeginningofthetrialItoldyouthat[both][all]defendantswerecharged,among t otherthings,withthecrimesof(describecrimes).1Thechargesof(describedisposedof & charges),asagainstthedefendant[s],[has][have]beendisposedof,and[he][she][they][is] 8  [are]nolonger[a]defendant[s]asto[that][those]_charge[s_].Youshouldnotguessaboutor    concernyourselveswiththereasonforthisdisposition.Youarenottoconsiderthisfactwhen  L  decidingifthe[government][prosecutor]hasprovedbeyondareasonabledoubtthat ^  defendant[s](nameremainingdefendant[s])committedanyofthecrimeswithwhich[he][she]   [they][is][are]charged,orwhendecidingifthe[government][prosecutor]hasprovedbeyonda "r  reasonabledoubtthatdefendant[s](nameremainingdefendants)committedtheremaining   crime[s]withwhich[he][she][they][is][are]charged. 6   [Iamstrikingtheevidencethat(describestrickenevidence).Itisnolongerbeforeyou, H andyoumaynotbeconsiderit.]2    [Sofarasthiscaseisconcerned,youwillcontinuetobeconcernedwiththefollowing  \ charges:(describecharges).]3 n  &  @$ NotesonUse      1.Ifoneormorecountsofthesameoffensehasbeendisposedofandothercountsofthe 2! sameoffenseremain,thelanguageofthisinstructionshouldbemodified. n" '  2.Iftheevidenceremainsadmissible,thejurymaybesoinstructed.SeeUnitedStatesv. $ Kelley,152F.3d886,888(8thCir.1998). l%   3.Optionalforusewhenthereareanumberofcharges,andthecourtfeelsitwouldbe  ' helpfulto"re-cap"thoseremainingforthejury. ! ( & N @55! CommitteeComments  #l* 'N#  SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,andCommitteeComments,Instruction ~$, 2.12,supra.  j% - Y  @** %   2.14EVIDENCEADMITTEDAGAINSTONLYONEDEFENDANT R     Asyouknow,thereare(insertnumber)defendantsontrialhere:(nameeachdefendant).  Eachdefendantisentitledtohave[his][her]casedecidedsolelyontheevidencewhichapplies : to[him][her].Youmayconsidersomeoftheevidenceinthiscaseonlyagainstdefendant L  (name);youmaynotconsiderthatevidenceagainsttheotherdefendant[s].     Youmayconsiderthe[evidence][testimony][exhibit]you[areabouttohear][justheard  `  about],(describetestimonyorexhibit),onlyagainstdefendant(name).Youmustnotconsider r   thatevidencewhenyouaredecidingifthe[government][prosecutor]hasproved,beyonda $  reasonabledoubt,[its][his][her]caseagainstdefendant[s](name[s]). 6   &  @55! CommitteeComments      SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions. J '  Limitinginstructionsinformingthejuryofproperuseoftheevidencearesufficient, \ unlessthedefendantshowsthathisdefenseisirreconcilablewiththeotherdefendantsdefenses H orthejurycannotcompartmentalizetheevidence.UnitedStatesv.Bordeaux,84F.3d1544, 4 1547(8thCir.1996).Adistrictcourt,inadmittingRule404(b)typeevidence,neednotissuea  p limitinginstructionsuasponte.UnitedStatesv.Perkins,94F.3d429,43536(8thCir.1996).In  \ theabsenceofaspecificdefenserequest,nolimitinginstructionisrequiredwheretheevidenceis H relevanttoanissueinthecase.UnitedStatesv.Conley,523F.2d650,654n.7(8thCir.1975). 4 Whereevidencewasadmissibleagainstonedefendantbutnotadmissibletothreeother   defendants,atrialcourtdidnoterrinfailingtogivealimitinginstructionwherenonewas   requestedbydefensecounselandbeforeretiring,thejurywasinstructedthat [e]achdefendantis  entitledtohavehiscasedecidedsolelyontheevidencewhichappliestohim.UnitedStatesv.   Ortiz,125F.3d630,633(8thCir.1997).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Bell,99F.3d870,881(8thCir. ! 1996).  l"  @ %   2.15STATEMENTOFONEDEFENDANTINMULTIDEFENDANTTRIAL of     Youmayconsiderthestatementofdefendant(name)onlyinthecaseagainst[him][her],  andnotagainsttheotherdefendant[s].Youmaynotconsiderordiscussdefendant(names) : statementinanywaywhenyouaredecidingifthe[government][prosecutor]proved,beyonda L  reasonabledoubt,[its][his][her]caseagainsttheotherdefendant[s].    &  @55! CommitteeComments   `    SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions. r   ' e  Brutonv.UnitedStates,391U.S.123(1968),heldthatnontestifyingcodefendant $  confessionsusedinajointtrialwhichimplicateanotherdefendantontheirfaceareso   "devastating"thattheireffectcannotbelimitedbyjuryinstructionstoconsiderthatconfession   onlyagainstthecodefendant.Unlessdirectlyadmissible,Brutonholdssuchconfessionstobe   barredbytheConfrontationClause.TheBrutonrulehasbeenextendedtoapplytoa   nontestifyingcodefendant'sconfessionincasesinwhichtheconfessionofthedefendanthasbeen p admitted,evenwheretheconfessionsare"interlocking,"Cruzv.NewYork,481U.S.186,191-93 \ (1987).However,thefactthattheconfessions"interlock"maybeconsideredinassessing H whetherthestatementsaresupportedbysufficientindiciaofreliabilitytobedirectlyadmissible 4 againstthedefendant.Id.at193-94.  p   Insomecases,anontestifyingcodefendant'sconfessionmaybeadmittedwithaproper  limitinginstructionwheretheconfessionisredactedtoeliminatethedefendant'snameandany n referencetohisorherexistenceorwherethestatementprovidesonly"evidentiarylinkage"tothe Z defendantontrial.SeeRichardsonv.Marsh,481U.S.200,211(1987). F   Thisinstructionshouldnotbeusedinconnectionwithcoconspiratordeclarations  admittedunderFed.R.Evid.801(d)(2)(E).See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Roth,736F.2d1222,1229  (8thCir.1984),orinanysituationinwhichthecodefendant'sstatementmaybedirectly   admissibleagainstthedefendant.SeeCruzv.NewYork,481U.S.at193-94(citingLeev. l! Illinois,476U.S.530(1986)).However,alimitinginstructionisappropriatewhenanoutof X " courtstatementofacoconspiratorisadmittednotforthetruthofthematterstated,butratherto D!# explaintheactionsofanagent.Garrettv.UnitedStates,78F.3d1296,1303(8thCir.1995). 0"$ ( Wehavepreviouslynotedthatifaconspiratorstatementisbothpermissiblebackgroundand #l% highlyprejudicial,otherwisehearsay,fairnessdemandsthatthegovernmentfindawaytogetthe $X& backgroundintoevidencewithouthearsay.(Citationsomitted.)Thetrialcourtshouldinstruct $D ' thejuryastothelimitedpurposeofanyhearsaystatementsthatcannotbeavoided.Withoutsuch %0!( procedures,thereisastrongriskthatwhilethestatementmaybeofferedasbackgroundforthe &") agentsactions,theywillinevitablybeusedasdirectevidenceofthedefendantsguilt.)  '#*  @  %   2.16DEFENDANT'STESTIMONYIMPEACHMENTBYPRIOR@@%CONVICTION of     You[areabouttohear][haveheard]evidencethatdefendant(name)waspreviously  convictedof[a]crime[s].Youmayusethatevidenceonlytohelpyoudecidewhethertobelieve : [his][her]testimonyandhowmuchweighttogiveit.Thefactthat[he][she]waspreviously L  convictedofacrimedoesnotmeanthat[he][she]committedthecrimechargedhere,andyou   mustnotusethatevidenceasanyproofofthecrimechargedinthiscase.  `    [Thatevidencemaynotbeusedinanywayatallinconnectionwiththeother r   defendant[s].]1 $   &  @$ NotesonUse  6    1.Foruseinamultipledefendantcase.   '6a&  @55! CommitteeComments  J   SeeIntroductoryComment,Section,2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions. \ '  Ifpastcrimesofthedefendantaretobeusedtoestablishintent,motiveorothermental  element,andnotforthepurposeofimpeachment,Instruction2.08shouldbeusedratherthanthis  Instruction.Ifthepastcrimesaretobeusedtoshowacommonpattern,schemeorplanas  betweentheprioractsandpresentoffense,ortoshowthedefendant'sidentity,Instruction2.09,  supra,shouldbeused.Forimpeachmentbypriorconvictionofawitnessotherthanthe n defendant,seeInstruction2.18,infra.  Z  @  %   2.17DEFENDANT'STESTIMONYIMPEACHMENTBY  @uuOTHERWISEINADMISSIBLESTATEMENT(Harrisv.NewYork) IN     Therehasbeenevidencethatdefendant(name)wasquestionedpriortothistrial,and t madecertainstatements.Youmayusethatevidenceonlytohelpyoudecidewhether[he][she] & madeastatementbeforetrialandwhetherwhat[he][she]saidhereincourtwastrue. 8   &  @55! CommitteeComments       SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions.  L  '   AstatementobtainedinviolationofMirandamayconstitutionallybeusedfor ^  impeachmentpurposesifitwasvoluntaryandtrustworthy.Oregonv.Hass,420U.S.714 J  (1975);Harrisv.NewYork,401U.S.222(1971);Clarkv.Wood,823F.2d1241,1246(8thCir. 6  1987).Thetrialjudgeshouldstressthatthegovernmentcannotusethepriorstatementtoprove "r  thedefendant'sguilt;itcanonlyuseittoimpeach.Thestatementcanonlybeusedifthe ^  defendanttakesthestandandtestifiescontrarytothepriorstatement.Wherethestatementis J usedforimpeachment,thestandardforadmissibilityisvoluntariness.Oregonv.Elstad,470 6 U.S.298,307-08(1985).Ifthedefendantraisesavoluntarinessissuewithrespecttotheprior " statement,itwillalsobenecessary,uponthedefendant'srequest,toinstructthejury  appropriatelyonthatissue(seeCommitteeComments,Instruction2.07,supra).However,  absentarequestandaclearinvocationof18U.S.C.3501(a)attrial,suchaninstructionisnot  required.UnitedStatesv.Diop,546F.2d484,485-86(2dCir.1976).Presumablyinthose  circumstances,itwouldalsobenecessary,pursuantto18U.S.C.3501,forthetrialjudgeto n conductahearingoutofthepresenceofthejury,andmakeafindingontheissue,before Z allowingthepriorstatementtobeusedevenforimpeachmentpurposes. F   Useofadefendantsvoluntarystatementtoanagentmaybeusedforimpeachment  purposesifaproperlimitinginstructionisgiven.UnitedStatesv.Tucker,137F.3d1016,1035  (8thCir.1998).    @6 6  %   2.18IMPEACHMENTOFWITNESSPRIORCONVICTION IN#      Youhaveheardthatthewitness(name)wasonceconvictedof[a]crime[s].Youmayuse  thatevidenceonlytohelpyoudecidewhethertobelievethewitnessandhowmuchweightto : give[his][her]testimony. L   &  @55! CommitteeComments      SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerninglimitinginstructions.  `  '   Wherethewitnessisthedefendant,Instruction2.16,supra,shouldbeused.  r    @  %   2.19WITNESSWHOHASPLEADEDGUILTY INx     Youhaveheardthatthewitness(name)[pled][pleaded]guiltytoacrimewhicharoseout  ofthesameeventsforwhichthedefendantisontrialhere.Youmustnotconsiderthatguilty : pleaasanyevidenceofthisdefendant'sguilt.Youmayconsiderthatwitness'guiltypleaonlyfor L  thepurposeofdetermininghowmuch,ifatall,torelyupon[his][her]testimony.1    &  @$ NotesonUse   `    1.Suchevidencemayalsobeusedtoshowthewitness'acknowledgmentofparticipation r   intheoffense.UnitedStatesv.Roth,736F.2d1222,1226(8thCir.1984).Ifadmittedforthat ^  purpose,theinstructionshouldbesomodified. J  ' &  @55! CommitteeComments      SeeIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,andCommitteeComments,Instruction ^  2.12,supra,concerningacodefendant'sguiltyplea. J 'z  Evidencethatacodefendanthaspleadedguiltymaynotbeusedassubstantiveproofofa \ defendant'sguilt.However,suchevidenceisadmissibletoimpeach,toshowthewitness' H acknowledgmentofparticipationintheoffense,ortoreflectonhiscredibility.Insuch 4 circumstances,thejuryshouldbeinstructedthattheevidenceisreceivedforoneormoreofthese  p purposesalone,andthatthejurorsarenottoinfertheguiltofthedefendant.UnitedStatesv.  \ _Lundstrom_,898F.2d635,640n.10(8thCir.1990)(notingwithapproval8thCir.ModelCrim. H JuryInstruction2.19);UnitedStatesv.Roth,736F.2d1222,1226(8thCir.1984).Seealso 4 Gerberdingv.UnitedStates,471F.2d55,60(8thCir.1973);UnitedStatesv.Wiesle,542F.2d   61,62-63(8thCir.1976);Wallacev.Lockhart,701F.2d719,725-26(8thCir.1983).     However,theadmissionofsuchevidencewithoutalimitinginstructionisnotreversible n errorifdefensecounseldidnotrequestaninstructionandiftheevidencewasintroducedand  Z  usedforaproperpurpose.Gerberdingv.UnitedStates,471F.2dat60;UnitedStatesv.Wiesle, F! 542F.2dat63;UnitedStatesv.Roth,736F.2dat1226-27.InRothitwasheldthataproper 2" purposeofdisclosingthepleaagreementandcooperationistodiffuseanyattempttoshowbias  # oncross-examination. ! $   Foradiscussionofimpeachmentofawitnessbyapriorinconsistentstatementwhichalso #l& incriminatesthedefendantandappropriatelimitinginstructions,seeUnitedStatesv.Rogers,549 $X' F.2d490,494-98(8thCir.1976).  $D (  @  %   2.20DEFENDANT'SPREVIOUSTRIAL n     Youhaveheardthattherewasaprevioustrialofthedefendant[s]forthecrime[s]charged  here.Keepinmind,however,thatyoumustdecidethiscasesolelyontheevidencepresentedto : youinthistrial.Thefactthattherewasaprevioustrialmustnotaffectonyourconsiderationof L  thiscase.    & N @55! CommitteeComments   `    See'N UnitedStatesv.Hykel,461F.2d721,726(3dCir.1972);Carseyv.UnitedStates, r   392F.2d810,812(D.C.Cir.1967).SeealsoIntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra, ^  concerningcurativeinstructions. J    Thisinstructionshouldnotbegivenunlessthejuryhasbeeninformedoftheprevious   trialandtheinstructionhasbeenspecificallyrequestedbythedefense.     @  %   2.21.DEFENDANT'SPHOTOGRAPHS"MUGSHOTS" n      Thewitness(name)testifiedthat[he][she]viewedaphotographofdefendant(name)  whichwasshownto[him][her]bythepolice.Thepolicecollectpicturesofmanypeoplefrom : manydifferentsourcesandformanydifferentpurposes.Thefactthatthepolicehadthe L  defendant'spicturedoesnotmeanthat[he][she]committedthisoranyothercrime,anditmust   notaffectonyourconsiderationofthiscase.  `   & N @55! CommitteeComments  r     SeegenerallyUnitedStatesv.Runge,593F.2d66,69(8thCir.1979).'Nr #Seealso $  IntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerningcurativeinstructions.     Thisinstructionshouldnotbegivenunlessspecificallyrequestedbythedefense.  "r   @  %   2.22.DISCHARGEOFDEFENSECOUNSELDURINGTRIAL pr%     Eventhoughdefendant(name)wasatfirstrepresentedbyalawyer,[he][she]hasdecided  tocontinuethetrialrepresenting[himself][herself]andnottousetheservicesofalawyer.[He] : [She]hasarighttodothat.[His][Her]decisionhasnobearingonwhether[he][she]isguiltyor L  notguilty,anditmustnotaffectyourconsiderationofthiscase.    & N @55! CommitteeComments   `    See'N 'IntroductoryComment,Section2.00,supra,concerningcurativeinstructions.  r    @  3.05.DESCRIPTIONOFCHARGE;INDICTMENTNOTEVIDENCE;  @ PRESUMPTIONOFINNOCENCE;BURDENOFPROOF  @rr(SingleDefendant,SingleCount)  )     Theindictmentinthiscasechargesthedefendantwith(insertoffense).1Thedefendant ` haspleadednotguiltytothatcharge.     Theindictmentissimplythedocumentthatformallychargesthedefendantwiththecrime $ t forwhich[he][she]isontrial.Theindictmentisnotevidence.Youmustpresumethe    defendanttobeinnocentatthisstageintheproceedings.Thus,thetrialofthedefendantbegins  8  withacleanslatewithnoevidenceagainst[him][her]. J    Thepresumptionofinnocencealoneissufficienttofindthedefendantnotguiltyandcan   beovercomeonlyiftheGovernmentproves,beyondareasonabledoubt,eachelementofthe ^  crimecharged. p   Thereisnoburdenuponadefendanttoprovethat[he][she]isinnocent.[Instead,the " burdenofproofremainsonthegovernmentthroughoutthetrial.]2[Accordingly,thefactthatthe 4 defendantdidnottestifymustnotbeconsideredbyyouinanyway,orevendiscussed,inarriving  atyourverdict.]3 H  @$ NotesonUse  Z   1.ThedescriptionoftheoffenseshouldbethesameasthatutilizedwithInstruction    1.01. !   2.Inthosecasesinvolvingcertainaffirmativedefensesthatshifttheburdenofproofto  Z# thedefense,suchascoercion(Instruction9.02),insanity(Instruction9.03),andwithdrawalfrom F$ conspiracy(Instruction5.06H),thissentenceshouldberevisedoreliminated. 2%   3.Thissentenceshouldbegivenonlyifthedefendantsorequestsontherecord. D!' & N @55! CommitteeComments  ") 'N"2  Aninstructiononthe"presumptionofinnocence"isonemeansofprotectingthe $X+ accused'sconstitutionalrighttobejudgedsolelyonthebasisoftheproofadducedattrial. $D , Taylorv.Kentucky,436U.S.478,486(1978).Failuretogivesuchaninstructionmaybe %0!- evaluatedasadueprocessviolation.Kentuckyv._Whorton_,441U.S.786,790(per &". curiam)(1979). '#/   TheCommitteehasrecentlyupdated,andslightlyexpandedupon,itspreviousjury )j$1 instructionsregardingthepresumptionofinnocenceandtheburdenofproofincriminalcases.In *V%2 UnitedStatesv.Lewis,593F.3d765,771(8thCir.2010),theCourtupheldadistrictcourtsjury *B&3 instructionregardingthepresumptionofinnocencewhichincludedthe cleanslateconcept, +.'4 althoughpreviouslysuchlanguagewasnotincludedinthemodelinstructionsandisnot  constitutionallymandated.    @V V   3.10.LESSERINCLUDEDOFFENSE 99+7     IfyourverdictunderInstructionNo.___[astoanyparticulardefendantcharged][under  Count___]isnotguilty,orif,afterallreasonableefforts,youareunabletoreachaverdict[asto : thatdefendant]onInstructionNo.___,youshouldrecordthatdecisionontheverdict_form[s_]and L  goontoconsiderwhether[that]defendantisguiltyofthecrimeof(describelesserincluded   offense)underthisinstruction.Thecrimeof(describelesserincludedoffense),[alesser  `  includedoffenseofthecrimechargedin[Count___of]theindictment,]1has_____elements, r   whichare: $    One,__________________________________________________________________; 6    Two,______________________________________________________________;and     Etc.,__________________________________________________________________. J   Foryoutofind[a]defendantguiltyofthiscrime[,alesserincludedoffense,][under \ Count___],theGovernmentmustprovealloftheseelementsbeyondareasonabledoubt[asto  thatdefendant];otherwiseyoumustfind[the][thatparticular]defendantnotguiltyofthiscrime  p [,alesserincludedoffense,][underCount___].2   @$ NotesonUse  4   1.Thebracketedlanguagedescribingtheoffenseasalesserincludedoffenseisoptional. F    2.Ifalesserincludedoffenseissubmittedtothejuryusingthisinstruction,whichallows " aguiltyverdictonthelesserincludedoffense,andifthejuryfindsthedefendantnotguiltyofthe # greateroffenseorisunabletoreachaverdictonthegreateroffense,theverdictformshouldbe $ modifiedtoreflectthatoption. l% @55! CommitteeComments   '   SeegenerallyFed.R.Crim.P.31(c). 0")   InUnitedStatesv.Hanson,618F.2d1261,1265(8thCir.1980),theEighthCircuit #+ adoptedtheSecondCircuit'sholdinginUnitedStatesv._Tsanas_,572F.2d340,346(2dCir. ~$, 1978),that j% - 0  [_n]either_Ԁaninstructionwhichrequiresaunanimousverdictofnotguiltyofgreater &"/ offensebeforeallowingthejurytomovetothelesser,noraninstructionthatitis '#0 sufficienttomovetothelesserifthejurycannotreachagreementonaconvictionforthe (#1 greateroffense,iswrongasamatteroflaw,andthecourtmaygivetheonethatitprefers )$2 ifthedefendantexpressesnochoice;ifhedoes,courtshouldgivetheformofinstruction |*%3 whichdefendantseasonablyelects.h+&4(#(# SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Bordeaux,121F.3d1187,1190n.5(8thCir.1997);UnitedStatesv.  Roy,843F.2d305,309(8thCir.1988).    TheCommitteerecommendstheuseofaninstructionsuchasthisone,whichpresents N bothalternatives. :   iX@XXX@TheEighthCircuitholdsthatalesserincludedoffenseinstructionshouldbegivenif L  eitherthedefenseorthegovernmentrequestsitandwherevariousfactorsarepresent,including 8   #X@XXiX@E#where:(1)aproperrequestismade;(2)theelementsofthelesseroffenseareidenticaltopartof $ t theelementsofthegreateroffense;(3)thereissomeevidencewhichwouldjustifyconvictionof  `  thelesseroffense;(4)proofonelementorelementsdifferentiatingthetwocrimesissufficiently  L  indisputesothatthejurymayconsistentlyfindthedefendantinnocentofthegreateroffenseand  8  guiltyofthelesserincludedoffense;and(5)thereismutuality,i.e.,thechargemaybedemanded $  byeithertheprosecutionordefense.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.PumpkinSeed,572F.3d552,562   (8thCir.2009).Thisfiveparttestfordeterminingwhetheralesserincludedoffenseinstruction   shouldbegivenhasbeenenunciatedfrequently.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Gentry,555F.3d659,   667(8thCir.2009);UnitedStatesv._Herron_,539F.3d881,88586(8thCir.2008);UnitedStates   v._Neiss_,684F.2d570,571(8thCir.1982).InUnitedStatesv.Roy,843F.2dat310,thecourt p setoutafourparttestwhichdoesnotincludethe"mutuality"factorofthefiveparttest,thatis, \ thefactorstatingthatthelesserincludedinstructionmaybedemandedbyeithertheprosecution H orthedefense. 4   TheSupremeCourthassettledaconflictamongthecircuitsandadoptedan"elements"  testtodeterminewhenoneoffenseisnecessarilyincludedinanother.  0   ` Underthistest,oneoffenseisnotnecessarilyincludedinanotherunlessthe 4 elementsofthelesseroffenseareasubsetoftheelementsofthechargedoffense.Where   thelesseroffenserequiresanelementnotrequiredforthegreateroffense,noinstruction   istobegivenunderRule31(c).(#(# Schmuckv.UnitedStates,489U.S.705,715(1989);seeUnitedStatesv._Santisteban_,501F.3d  Z 873,881(8thCir.2007). F   Inasimplecasewithonlyonedefendant,thelesserincludedoffenseinstructioncould X ! startwiththephrase,"[_i]f_Ԁyoudonotfindthedefendantguiltyof___underInstructionNo.___, D!" thenyoumustconsiderwhetherheisguiltyof____underthisinstruction."Theinstruction 0"# shouldthencontinuewithanelementsinstructionandburdenofproofinstructionforthelesser #l$ includedoffense.  $X% 8@XXdgXd8 Ӏ@  3.11.REASONABLEDOUBT oeR     Reasonabledoubtisdoubtbaseduponreasonandcommonsense,andnotdoubtbasedon  speculation.Areasonabledoubtmayarisefromcarefulandimpartialconsiderationofallthe > evidence,orfromalackofevidence.Proofbeyondareasonabledoubtisproofofsucha P  convincingcharacterthatareasonableperson,aftercarefulconsideration,wouldnothesitateto   relyandactuponthatproofinlifesmostimportantdecisions.Proofbeyondareasonabledoubt  d  _i_Ԁsproofthatleavesyoufirmlyconvincedofthedefendantsguilt.Proofbeyondareasonable v   doubtdoesnotmeanproofbeyondallpossibledoubt. (   @55! CommitteeComments  :    Itisthecourtsdutytoinstructonthemeaningofreasonabledoubt.Friedmanv.United   States,381F.2d155(8thCir.1967).Aconstitutionallyinadequatereasonabledoubtinstruction   isnotharmlesserror.Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275(1993). t   TheCommitteehasrecentlyupdated,andslightlyexpandedupon,itspreviousjury & instructionsregardingthepresumptionofinnocenceandthedefinitionofreasonabledoubtin  criminalcases.Includedintherevisionistheadditionofthephrase inlifesmostimportant  decisions,aphrasesimilartothatusedinthemodelinstructionsofothercircuits.See,e.g.,  FifthCircuitModelJuryInstruction,1.05;SixthCircuitModelJuryInstructions,1.03;  EleventhCircuitModelJuryInstruction3(ReasonableDoubt). r   Thisinstructiondoesnotusethephrases, moralevidenceor moralcertainty,which $ raisedsomeseriousquestionsin_Sandoval_Ԁv.California,511U.S.1101(1994),norother  troublinglanguage,suchasrequiringa graveuncertainty,whichwasfoundobjectionablein  Cagev.Louisiana,498U.S.39,40(1990).TheSupremeCourtreiteratedin_Sandoval_thatthe   Constitutiondoesnotmandateanyparticularformofwords.  !  k@u u   6.18.1341.MAILFRAUD(18U.S.C.1341) 8.]     Thecrimeof[mail]fraud,aschargedin[Count_____of]theindictment,has[three]  [four]elements,whichare: :   One,thedefendantvoluntarilyandintentionally[devisedormadeupaschemetodefraud L  anotheroutof[money,propertyorpropertyrights][theintangiblerighttohonestservices]1]   [participatedinaschemetodefraudwithknowledgeofitsfraudulentnature][devisedor  `  participatedinaschemetoobtain[money,propertyorpropertyrights][theintangiblerightto r   honestservices]bymeansofmaterialfalserepresentationsorpromises]2[whichschemeis $  describedasfollows:(describeschemeinsummaryformorinmannerchargedinthe 6  indictment)];3     Two,thedefendantdidsowiththeintenttodefraud;[and] J   Three,thedefendantused,orcausedtobeused,[themail][aprivateinterstatecarrier][a \ commercialinterstatecarrier]4infurtheranceof,orinanattempttocarryout,someessentialstep  inthescheme;[and]  p   [Four,theschemewasinconnectionwiththeconductoftelemarketing.]  @)or 4   [Four,theschemewasinconnectionwiththeconductoftelemarketingand F  8   ` (a) victimizedtenormorepersonsovertheageof55,or"   8   ` (b) targetedpersonsovertheageof55.] Z$   @)or l&   [Four,thattheschemeaffectedafinancialinstitution.]5  (   Thephrase"schemetodefraud"includesanyplanorcourseofactionintendedtodeceive 0"* orcheatanotheroutof[money,propertyorpropertyrights][theintangiblerighttohonest #, services]by[employingmaterialfalsehoods][concealingmaterialfacts][omittingmaterial $D . facts].Italsomeanstheobtainingof[moneyorproperty][theintangiblerighttohonestservices] V&!0 fromanotherbymeansofmaterialfalserepresentationsorpromises.Aschemetodefraudneed '#2 notbefraudulentonitsfacebutmustincludesomesortoffraudulentmisrepresentationor )j$4  promisereasonablycalculatedtodeceiveareasonableperson.6 |*%6   Astatementorrepresentationis"false"whenitisuntruewhenmadeoreffectively   concealsoromitsamaterialfact.7 b   A[fact][falsehood][representation][promise]is"material"ifithasanaturaltendencyto t influence,oriscapableofinfluencing,thedecisionofareasonablepersonindecidingwhetherto & engageornottoengageinaparticulartransaction.8[However,whethera[fact][falsehood] 8  [representation][promise]is"material"doesnotdependonwhetherthepersonwasactually    deceived.]9  L    Toactwith"intenttodefraud"meanstoactknowinglyandwiththeintenttodeceive ^  someoneforthepurposeofcausingsome[financialloss]or[lossofpropertyorpropertyrights]   [lossofanintangiblerighttohonestservices]toanotherorbringingaboutsomefinancialgainto "r  oneselforanothertothedetrimentofathirdparty.10[Withrespecttofalsestatements,the   defendantmusthaveknownthestatementwasuntruewhenmadeorhavemadethestatement 6 withrecklessindifferencetoitstruthorfalsity.]11 H   [Thetermpropertyrights,asusedinthemailfraudstatute,includesintangibleaswellas  tangiblepropertyrights.Itincludesanypropertyrightwhichhasavalue!notnecessarilya  \ monetaryvalue!totheownerofthepropertyright.Forexample,aschemetodeprivea n companyoftheexclusiveuseofconfidentialbusinessinformationobtainedbytheemployees    wouldbeaschemetodeprivethecompanyofintangiblepropertyrights.]12 2"   Itisnotnecessarythattheuseof[themail][aninterstatecarrier]bytheparticipants $ themselvesbecontemplatedorthatthedefendantdoanyactual[mailing][sendingofmaterialby F& aninterstatecarrier]orspecificallyintendthat[themail][aninterstatecarrier]beused.Itis X ( sufficientif[themail][aninterstatecarrier]wasinfactusedtocarryouttheschemeandtheuse ! * of[themail][aninterstatecarrier]bysomeonewasreasonablyforeseeable.13 #l,   [Mailings][Deliveriesbyaninterstatecarrier]whicharedesignedtolullvictimsintoa ~$. falsesenseofsecurity,postponeinquiriesorcomplaints,ormakethetransactionlesssuspectare %0!0 [mailings][deliveries]infurtheranceofthescheme.]14 B'"2   [Eachseparateuseof[themail][aninterstatecarrier]infurtheranceoftheschemeto (#4  defraudconstitutesaseparateoffense.]15 *V%6   [The[mail]fraudcountsoftheindictmentchargethateachdefendant,alongwiththe   otherdefendants,devisedorparticipatedinascheme.TheGovernmentneednotprove, b however,thatthedefendantsmettogethertoformulatetheschemecharged,orthattherewasa t formalagreementamongthem,inorderforthemtobeheldjointlyresponsiblefortheoperation & oftheschemeandtheuseof[themail][aninterstatecarrier]forthepurposeofaccomplishing 8  thescheme.Itissufficientifonlyonepersonconceivestheschemeandtheothersknowingly,    voluntarilyandintentionallyjoininandparticipateinsomewayintheoperationoftheschemein  L  orderforsuchotherstobeheldjointlyresponsible.]16 ^    [ItisnotnecessarythattheGovernmentprove[allofthedetailsallegedintheindictment   concerningtheprecisenatureandpurposeofthescheme][thatthematerial[mailed][sentbyan "r  interstatecarrier]wasitselffalseorfraudulent][thattheallegedschemeactuallysucceededin   defraudinganyone][thattheuseof[themail][aninterstatecarrier]wasintendedasthespecific 6 orexclusivemeansofaccomplishingtheallegedfraud].]17 H   [Ifyoufindproofbeyondareasonabledoubtofabusinesscustom(describecustom,e.g.,  todatestamponlyitemsreceivedthroughthemail),thatisevidencefromwhichyoumay,but  \ arenotrequiredto,findorinferthat[themail][aninterstatecarrier]wasusedtodeliverthose n items.]18      (InsertparagraphdescribingGovernment'sburdenofproof;seeInstruction3.09,supra.) 2"  @$ NotesonUse $ f  V  g f  W}g   1.Deprivinganotheroftheintangiblerightofhonestservicesiscoveredbythemail F& fraudstatute.18U.S.C.1346.f  X  ԍInUnitedStatesv.Jain,93F.3d436(8thCir.1996),thecourt Z heldthatinaYg f  V  g ԀSection1346criminalizesonlybriberyandkickbackschemes. 2' _Skilling_Ԁv.UnitedStates,___U.S.___,___,130S.Ct.2896,2931(2010).InW~privatesector(as  ( opposedtopubliccorruption)honestservicesmailfraud,thegovernmentmustshowanintentto ! ) harmthevictimbeforemailfraudisproven.V  UnitedStatesv.Jain,93F.3d436(8thCir.1996).f  W?g  "* V  g f  Wg   2.Thepropermailfraudtheorychargedintheindictmentshouldbeselectedand $X, includedinthebodyoftheinstruction.Ifmorethanonetheoryispartoftheevidenceinthe $D - case,andthetheoriesconstituteaseparateoffenseoranelementoftheoffense,suchalternatives %0!. canbesubmittedinthedisjunctiveandthejuryinstructedthatalljurorsmustagreeastothe &"/ particulartheory.UnitedStatesv._Blumeyer_,114F.3d758(8thCir.1997).Insuchacase,the '#0 jurymaybeinstructedasfollows: (#1 8  YouneednotfindthatallofthetheorieschargedinCount___oftheindictment *V%3 aref  g f  g provenf  g ;instead,youmustfindunanimouslyandbeyondareasonabledoubt *B&4 thatatleastoneofthetheoriessetoutinCount__oftheindictmentisf  g f  g provenf  g .+.'5     Ifmorethanonefalsepromiseorstatementispartoftheevidenceinthecase,andthe  promisesorstatementssetoutdifferentwaysofcommittingtheoffensebutdonotconstitutea  separateoffenseoranelementoftheoffense,thenthejurymaybeinstructedthatallthejurors  neednotagreeastotheparticulartheory,ortheparticularfalsepromiseorstatement,thatwas t made.Insuchacase,f  thejurymaybeinstructedasfollows: ` 8  Count___oftheindictmentaccusesthedefendantofcommittingthecrimeof___   inmorethanonepossibleway.Thefirstisthathe___.Thesecondisthathe   ___.Thegovernmentdoesnothavetoprovealloftheseforyoutoreturnaguilty   verdictonthischarge.Proofbeyondareasonabledoubtofanyoneoftheseways    isenough.Inordertoreturnaguiltyverdict,alltwelveofyoumustagreethatat r   leastoneofthesehasbeenproved;however,allofyouneednotagreethatthe ^  sameonehasbeenproved.J    f  g See_Schad_Ԁv.Arizona,501U.S.624(1991)(pluralityopinion),inwhichtheSupremeCourt   rejectedtheapproachofrequiringunanimitywhenthemeansusedtocommitanoffensesimply   satisfyanelementofacrimeanddonotthemselvesconstituteaseparateoffenseoranelementof   anoffense.Inthesecircumstances,unanimityisnotrequired.Id.at63033.Ontheotherhand, p ifthemeansusedtocommitanoffensearedeemedanelementofthecrime,unanimityis \ required.SeealsoRichardsonv.UnitedStates,526U.S.813,817(1999)(pluralityopinion),in H whichtheCourtagaindistinguishedtheelementsofacrimefromthemeansusedtocommitthe 4 elementsofthecrime.Ifafactisanelement, ajuryinafederalcriminalcasecannotconvict  p unlessitunanimouslyfindsthattheGovernmenthasproved[it].Id.Ontheotherhand,ifthe  \ factisdefinedasameansofcommittingthecrime, afederaljuryneednotalwaysdecide H unanimouslywhichofseveralpossiblesetsofunderlyingbrutefactsmakeupaparticular 4 element,say,whichofseveralpossiblemeansthedefendantusedtocommitanelementofthe   crime.Richardson,526U.S.at817(citing_Schad_Ԁv.Arizona,501U.S.624(1991)).     3.Inasimplecaseabriefdescriptionofthefraudshouldbegiveninthefirstelement. n Anexamplewouldbe:  Z 8  One,thatthedefendantdevisedaschemetodefraudthebrokeragefirmofSmith l &Jonesbypledgingcounterfeitstockcertificatesascollateralonmarginloans X   giventothedefendant,thuscausingalosstoSmith&Jonesof5milliondollars.D!!   Someschemeswillbetoocomplicatedtolendthemselvestoshortdescriptions.Inthose "# schemesthecourtmaymorefullysummarizetheschemeorrefertothedescriptionofthe #$ schemecontainedintheindictment. ~$%   Insubmittingasummaryoftheschemetothejury,thecourtshouldbeawarethaton %0!' occasionsomeallegationsandmisrepresentationschargedintheindictmentarenotproven. &"( Thesemaybedeletedfromthesummary;however,thecourtshouldbeawarethatifmany '#) allegationsarenotproven,theremaybeamaterialandprejudicialvariancebetweenwhatis (#* allegedintheindictmentandwhatisprovenattrial. )$+   4.f  X  ԍAfterSeptember13,1994,Yg 18U.S.C.1341coversschemescarriedoutbydepositingmattertobesentor *B&- deliveredbyanyprivateorcommercialinterstatecarrier. +.'.   5.Af  g f  g fourthf  g Ԁelementisrequiredwhentheindictmentallegesanyfactsthatwouldresultin  enhancedpenaltiesunder18U.S.C.1341,2326.See_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466  (2000).Considerationshouldalsobegiventotheuseofaspecialverdictform(interrogatoriesto  followfindingofguilt). t   6."Intenttodefraud"and"schemetodefraud"shouldbedefinedintheinstruction. A & schemetodefraudneednotbefraudulentonitsface,butmustinvolvesomesortoffraudulent   misrepresentationsoromissionsreasonablycalculatedtodeceivepersonsofordinaryprudence   andcomprehension.UnitedStatesv.Goodman,984F.2d235,237(8thCir.1993).     7.Prestonv.UnitedStates,312F.3d959(8thCir.2002).  L    8.Prestonv.UnitedStates,312F.3d959(8thCir.2002). ^    9.SeeUnitedStatesv.Henderson,416F.3d686(8thCir.2005)(materialunder42   U.S.C.408(a)(3,4);UnitedStatesv.Mitchell,388F.3d1139(8thCir.2004)(18U.S.C.1001   (materiality)).     10.UnitedStatesv._Ervasti_,201F.3d1029(8thCir.2000).Falsestatementshavebeen J definedasthosewhichwereknowntobeuntrueatthetimetheyweremade,ormadewith 6 recklessindifferenceastotheirtruthorfalsity,andmadewiththeintenttodeceive.United " Statesv.Marley,549F.2d561(8thCir.1977).Recklessindifferenceissufficientinthesecases,  andadeliberateignoranceinstruction,ModelInstruction7.04,shouldnotbenecessary.  _Mattingly_Ԁv.UnitedStates,924F.2d785(8thCir.1991),isnotapplicabletothesecases.  0  11.UnitedStatesv._Casperson_,773F.2d216(8thCir.1985).H(#(#   12.18U.S.C.1346.InCarpenterv.UnitedStates,484U.S.19(1987),theSupreme Z Courtadoptedaverybroaddefinitionofpropertyrightsunderthemailandwirefraudstatutes. F TheCourtstatedthatthestatutecoveredintangibleaswellastangiblepropertyrightsand 2 includedtheWallStreetJournal'srighttocontroltheuseofinformationobtainedbyitsreporters n inthecourseoftheirduties.TheCourtheldthattherightoftheJournaltodecidehowandwhen  Z touseitsconfidentialbusinessinformationobtainedbyitsreporterswasapropertyrightandthat F  aschemetodeprivetheJournalofthisconfidentialbusinessinformationwasaschemewithin 2! thescopeofthemailfraudstatutes,evenifnomonetarylosstotheJournalwascausedbythe  " scheme. ! #   InUnitedStatesv._Shyres_,898F.2d647,652(8thCir.1990),thecourtheldthattheright #l% toexercisecontroloverspendingisapropertyrightprotectedbythemailfraudstatuteand $X& approvedthefollowinginstruction: $D ' 8  Theterm"propertyrights"asusedinthemailfraudstatuteincludesintangibleas V&!) wellastangibleproperty.Intangiblepropertyrightsincludeanyvaluableright B'"* consideredasasourceofwealth,andincludetherighttoexercisecontrolover .(~#+ howone'smoneyisspent.)j$,    SeealsoUnitedStatesv._Granberry_,908F.2d278(8thCir.1990). |*%.   However,theSupremeCourtheldinClevelandv.UnitedStates,532U.S.12(2000),that   stateandmunicipallicensesarenotpropertyunderthemailfraudstatute.    13.Seef  X  ԍ2AKevinF.OMalley,etal.,FEDERALJURYPRACTICEAND B'"+ INSTRUCTIONS:Criminal47.04(5thed.2000).Yg f  X  ԍSeealsoYg Pereirav.UnitedStates,347U.S.1,8-9(1954),whichholdsasfollows: N 8  Theelementsoftheoffenseofmailfraudunder18U.S.C.(Supp.V)1341are ` (1)aschemetodefraud,and(2)themailingofaletter,etc.,forthepurposeof L  executingthescheme.Itisnotnecessarythattheschemecontemplatetheuseof 8  themailsasanessentialelement.UnitedStatesv.Young,232U.S.155(1914). $ t Here,theschemetodefraudisestablished,andthemailingofthecheckbythe  `  bank,incidenttoanessentialpartofthescheme,isestablished.Thereremains  L  onlythequestionwhetherPereira"caused"themailing.Thatquestioniseasily  8  answered.Whereonedoesanactwithknowledgethattheuseofthemailswill $  followintheordinarycourseofbusiness,orwheresuchusecanreasonablybe   foreseen,eventhoughnotactuallyintended,thenhe"causes"themailstobeused.   UnitedStatesv._Kenofskey_,243U.S.440(1917).      ThisCircuithasdefined"reasonablyforeseeable"inavarietyofcontexts.Inamailfraud J schemeinwhichaninsurancecompanywasavictim,thecourtstatedasfollows: 6 8  Onewhoengagesincarryingoutaschemetodefraudisthereforeresponsible... H forausemadeofthemailtoeffectanecessaryorfacilitatingincidentthereof 4 wheresuchuseisfromthenatureofthebusinessandtheincidentoneofsuch  p ordinarycourseastoconstituteamatterofnatural_expectability_.Auseofthe  \ mailwhichisofsuchageneral_expectable_Ԁoccurrenceisentitledtobefoundtobe H reasonablyforeseeable.Thus,weobservedgenerally...astotheordinarycourse 4 ofsuchaninsurancebusinessasishereinvolved:    0  8` (#(#Certainlyindealingwithinsuranceagentsitwillbecontemplatedthatthe 2 mailswillhavetobeemployedincarryingonbusinesswiththedifferent n companiesforwhomtheagentdoesbusiness. Z` `  UnitedStatesv._Minkin_,504F.2d350,353-54(8thCir.1974)(citationomitted). l  &    InUnitedStatesv.Boyd,606F.2d792,794(8thCir.1979),thecourtheld:'   " 8  Conductiswithinthemailfraudstatutewhen,asinthiscase,theuseofthemails 0"$ forthepurposeofexecutingtheflowofpayofffundsisareasonablyforeseeable #l% possibilityinfurtheringthetransaction.$X&   SeealsoUnitedStatesv._Rabbitt_,583F.2d1014,1022-23(8thCir.1978). j% (   InUnitedStatesv.Brown,540F.2d364,376(8thCir.1976),thecourtstated: &"* 8  [_T]hus_Ԁ...BrownwasonnoticethattransferoffundsfromReliancetoMansion .(~#, Housebymailratherthanbyhanddeliverywasareasonablepossibility.Thiswas )j$- sufficientevidencefromwhichthejurycouldfindthatBrowncausedtheuseof *V%. themailstoaccomplishtheultimateobjectiveofthescheme.*B&/     14.UnitedStatesv.Sampson,371U.S.75(1962);UnitedStatesv.Brown,540F.2d364,  376(8thCir.1976);UnitedStatesv._Tackett_,646F.2d1240,1243(8thCir.1981).    InSchmuckv.UnitedStates,489U.S.705,713(1989),theCourtheldthatallmailings N thatareinanywaypartoftheexecutionoftheschemewillsupplythemailingelementofthe : offenseevenifthemailinglatermayturnouttobecounterproductiveandallowthediscoveryof & thescheme.     15.f  X  ԍ2AKevinF.OMalley,etal.,FEDERALJURYPRACTICEAND h+&0 INSTRUCTIONS:Criminal47.15(5thed.2000);Yg Atkinsonv.UnitedStates,344F.2d97(8thCir.1965);UnitedStatesv.Calvert,523 $ t F.2d895,903n.6,914(8thCir.1975).  `    16._Reistroffer_Ԁv.UnitedStates,258F.2d379,395(8thCir.1958);UnitedStatesv. r   Porter,441F.2d1204,1211(8thCir.1971). ^    17.Seef  X  ԍ2AKevinF.OMalley,etal.,FEDERALJURYPRACTICEAND N INSTRUCTIONS:Criminal47.04(5thed.2000);Yg UnitedStatesv.West,549F.2d545,552(8thCir.1977);UnitedStatesv.Gross,   416F.2d1205,1210(8thCir.1969);Atkinsonv.UnitedStates,344F.2d97,98(8thCir.1965);   UnitedStatesv.Calvert,523F.2d895,912(8thCir.1975)(useofmailneednotbespecifically   norexclusivelyintended).     18.UnitedStatesv._Shyres_,898F.2d647,658(8thCir.1990);UnitedStatesv._Cady_, 6 567F.2d771,775(8thCir.1977);UnitedStatesv._Minkin_,504F.2d350,352-53(8thCir. " 1974);UnitedStatesv.Joyce,499F.2d9,17(7thCir.1974);_Bolen_Ԁv.UnitedStates,303F.2d  870,875(9thCir.1962).Likewisemailingcanbeinferredfromthepresenceofaregular  postmark.UnitedStatesv._Noelke_,1Fed.426(_C.C.N.Y._Ԁ1880).SeealsoInstruction4.13,  supra,onspecificinferences.  & N @55! CommitteeComments  4 'N  Thecrimeofmailfraudisverybroadinscope.AstheEighthCircuitrestatedinUnited F Statesv.Bishop,825F.2d1278,1280(8thCir.1987): 2 8  Thecrimeofmailfraudisbroadinscope;...thefraudulentaspectofthescheme  to"defraud"ismeasuredbyanontechnicalstandard....Lawputsitsimprimatur   ontheacceptedmoralstandardsandcondemnsconductwhichfailstomatchthe l! "reflectionofmoraluprightness,offundamentalhonesty,fairplayandright X " dealinginthegeneralbusinesslifeofthemembersofsociety."Thisisindeed D!# broad.ForasJudgeHolmesonceobserved,"Thelawdoesnotdefinefraud;it 0"$ needsnodefinition.Itisasoldasfalsehoodandasversatileashumaningenuity."#l%     Thedefinitionof"scheme"asusedintheseinstructionsisveryoldandissimilartoone ~$' ofthefirstdefinitionsusedinthiscircuitinUnitedStatesv.Dexter,154Fed.890,896(N.D.Ia. j% ( 1907).Thecourttherestated: V&!) 8  Aschememaybesaidtobeadesignorplanformedtoaccomplishsomepurpose. '#+ Anartificemaybesaidtobeaningeniouscontrivanceordeviceofsomekindand (#, whenuseinabadsenseofthewordcorrespondswithtrickorfraud.Hence,a )$- schemeorartificetodefraudwithinthemeaningofthisstatutewouldbetoform |*%. someplanordevisesometricktoperpetrateafrauduponanother.h+&/     Theschememustbeone"reasonablycalculatedtodeceivepersonsofordinaryprudence  andcomprehension."UnitedStatesv.Goodman,984F.2d235,237(8thCir.1993),andmust  employmaterialfalsehoods._Neder_Ԁv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1(1999).Aschemeunderthe  statuteencompassesfalserepresentationsastofutureintentionsaswellasexistingfacts. t _Durland_Ԁv.UnitedStates,161U.S.306(1896).Indeed,asstatedabove,aschemetodefraud ` maybeactionableeventhoughnoactualmisrepresentationsaremade.SeeUnitedStatesv. L  Clausen,792F.2d102,10405(8thCir.1986).Aschemetodefraudmayalsoinvolvethe 8  concealmentofmaterialfacts.UnitedStatesv._Bessesen_,433F.2d861,863,864(8thCir.1970). $ t   Becauseofthediversetypesofmailfraudschemesprosecuted,itisdifficulttotailora    "model"instructionthatdoesnotrefertotheindictmentinthecase.Becauseofthebroad r   applicationofthemailfraudstatute,itwillbenecessarytodefinecertaintermsintheinstructions ^  tothejury. J    InClausen,thecourtstatedthatthemailfraudstatuteprohibitedbothschemestodefraud   andtheobtainingofmoneyandpropertybymeansoffalsepretenses.Thecourtheldthatfalse   pretenseswerenotessentialinordertoproveaschemetodefraud.Thus,itispropertoinstruct   thejurythatthemailfraudstatutemaybeviolatedeitherbydevisingaschemetodefraudorby p obtainingmoneyorpropertybymeansoffalseorfraudulentpretenses,representationsor \ promises. H   Onewhoparticipatesinanongoingmailfrauddevisedbyothersisguiltyofthecrimeof  mailfraud.UnitedStatesv.Wilson,506F.2d1252,1258(7thCir.1974).    Intenttodefraudisanelementofmailfraud._DeMier_Ԁv.UnitedStates,616F.2d366,369 H (8thCir.1980).Thus,goodfaithcanbeatheoryofdefense.UnitedStatesv.Arnold,543F.2d 4 1224(8thCir.1976).Adefendantisentitledtoaninstructiononagoodfaiththeoryofdefense   andoneshouldbegivenifthereisevidencetosupportthetheory,UnitedStatesv._Casperson_,   773F.2d216,222-24(8thCir.1985);UnitedStatesv._Sherer_,653F.2d334,337(8thCir.1981),  butnotwherethedefendantdeniestheconductwhichischargedandtheissueisoneof  credibility.UnitedStatesv._Kimmel_,777F.2d290,292-93(5thCir.1985).SeeInstruction9.08,  infra,forgoodfaithinstructions.f  X  ԍYg f  X  ԍSeealsoYg f  X  ԍ2AKevinF.OMalley,etal.,FEDERALJURY  PRACTICEANDINSTRUCTIONS:Criminal47.16(5thed.2000).Yg  l   Theelementsofwirefraudinviolationof18U.S.C.1343areidenticaltotheelements  ! ofmailfraudwithoneexception;thedefendantmustcauseinterstatewirefacilitiestobeused ! " insteadofthemail.Seegenerally,UnitedStatesv._Tackett_,646F.2d1240,1242-43(8thCir. "# 1981);UnitedStatesv._Mendenhall_,597F.2d639,641(8thCir.1979);UnitedStatesv.West, #$ 549F.2d545,549-53(8thCir.1977);UnitedStatesv.Gross,416F.2d1205,1209-10(8thCir. ~$% 1969).ButseeUnitedStatesv.Bryant,766F.2d370(8thCir.1985). j% &   Eachuseofthemailorthewiresisaseparateoffensenotwithstandingthefactthatthe &"( defendantdevisedonlyoneschemetodefraud.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Massa,740F.2d629, '#) 645-46(8thCir.1984);UnitedStatesv.Calvert,523F.2d895,914(8thCir.1975). (#*   Ifaconspiracytocommitmailfraudischarged,oneshouldbeawarethattheEighth *V%, Circuitatthepresenttimerequiresproofthattheconspiracy"contemplatedtheuseofthemails." *B&- UnitedStatesv.Donahue,539F.2d1131,1135,1136(8thCir.1976).Thatdecisionrelied +.'. heavilyonthecaseofBluev.UnitedStates,138F.2d351(6thCir.1943).InUnitedStatesv.  Reed,721F.2d1059(6thCir.1983),theSixthCircuitrejectedBlueinitsentiretyandheldthat  onlyareasonablyforeseeableuseofthemailneedbeproveninaconspiracycase.Ofthecircuits  whichhavedecidedthisissue,itappearsthatonlytheEighthCircuitrequiresthatamailfraud t conspiracy"contemplatetheuseofthemails."UnitedStatesv.Craig,573F.2d455(7thCir. ` 1977).  L   mk@   6.42.1320.SOLICITINGORRECEIVINGKICKBACKSINCONNECTION@@eeWITH  @MEDICAREORFEDERALHEALTHCAREPROGRAMPAYMENTS  @(42U.S.C.1320a7b(b)(1)(A)) 15 V  g 1f  W8g Ԉ    Thecrimeof[soliciting][receiving]kickbacksinconnectionwith[Medicare][(Federal ` healthcareprogram)]f  X  ԍ1Yg f  V  g 2f  Wpg payments,aschargedin[Count___of]theindictment,has[three][four]   elements,whichare: $ t   One,thedefendantknowinglyandwillfully[solicited][received](specifythe    remunerationalleged);f  X  ԍ2Yg f  V  g 3f  Wg   8    Two,the(specifytheremunerationalleged)was[solicited][paid]primarilyinorderto J  [induce][and][or][inexchangefor]thereferralofapatientinsuredby[Medicare][(Federal   healthcareprogram)];f  X  ԍ2Yg f  V  g 3f  Wg and ^    Three,thepatientsserviceswerecovered,inwholeorinpart,by[Medicare][(Federal p healthcareprogram)];[and] "   [Four,[Medicare][(Federalhealthcareprogram)]isaFederalhealthcareprogram.]f  X  ԍ3Yg f  V  g 4f  WUg 󀀀 4   [Adefendantactswillfullyifheknewhisconductwaswrongfulorunlawful.]f  X  ԍ4Yg f  V  g 5f  WEg     (InsertparagraphdescribingGovernment'sburdenofproof;seeInstruction3.09,supra.) H  @$ NotesonUse  Z f  V  g   1.ThePatientProtectionandAffordableHealthCareAct(theHealthCareReformAct)    X  ԍenactedinYWV  ofWOV  2010madesignificantchangestotheAntiKickbackStatute,particularlytothe_scienter_ ! requirement.TheActaddedthefollowing(Section1320a7(h)): Withrespecttoviolationsof " thissection,apersonneednothaveactualknowledgeofthissectionorspecificintenttocommit # aviolationofthissection.ForviolationsoccurringaftertheeffectivedateoftheAct,this l$ instructionwillneedtobeamendedtoincludethislanguage. X % f  Wng   f  X  ԍ1Yg f  V  g 2f  W0g .ThestatuteappliestoanyFederalhealthcareprogram,whichshouldbereferencedby ! ' name. "(   f  X  ԍ2Yg f  V  g 3f  W<g .ElementsOneandTwomaybemodifieddependingonwhetherthechargeisunder42 $X* U.S.C.1320a7b(1)(a)or(B)or7b(2)(A)or(B).Section1320a7b(1)(A),whichprohibits $D + patientreferralsforitemsorservicesforwhichpaymentmaybemade,inwholeorinpart,under %0!, aFederalhealthcareprogram,isthestatuteaddressedbytheinstructionaswritten.Section &"- 1320a7b(1)(B)prohibitssolicitingorreceivingremuneration(includinganykickback,bribe,or '#. rebate)directlyorindirectly,overtlyorcovertly,incashorinkind,inreturnforpurchasing, (#/ leasing,ordering,orarrangingfororrecommendingpurchasing,leasing,ororderinganygood, )$0 facility,service,oritemforwhichpaymentmaybemade,inwholeorinpart,underaFederal |*%1 healthcareprogram.Section1320a7b(2)(A)or(B)prohibitsofferingorpaying any h+&2 remuneration(includingkickback,bribe,orrebate),directlyorindirectly,overtlyorcovertly,in  cashorinkind,toanypersontoinducereferralsorpurchases,leases,orordersforanygood,  facility,service,oritem,forwhichpaymentismade,inwholeorinpart,underaFederalhealth  careprogram. t   f  X  ԍ3Yg f  V  g 4f  WQg .Thestatuterequiresthatthereferralbeforservicesoritemsforwhichpaymentmaybe & made inwholeorinpartunderaFederalhealthcareprogram.Eitherthecourtorthejurymay   makethefindingthattheprogramisaFederalhealthcareprogram.     f  X  ԍ4Yg f  V  g 5f  Wg .SeeUnitedStatesv.Jain,93F.3d436,43941(8thCir.1996).Amens_rea_instruction  `  morerigorousthanthetraditionalrulewasheldappropriatebasedonthefactthat theliteral  L  languageofthestatutemightotherwiseencompasssometypesofinnocentconduct.Id..at440.  8   [_T]he_Ԁelementsknowinglyandwillfullywereaddedtothestatutein1980toreflect $  congressionalconcernthatcriminalpenaltiesmaybeimposedundercurrentlawtoanindividual   whoseconduct,whileimproper,wasinadvertent.Id.at440.Because [_o]nly_Ԁconductthatis   inevitablynefarious,thatis,obviously evilorinherently bad,warrantsthetraditional   presumptionthatanyoneconsciouslyengaginginithasfairwarningofacriminalviolation,   (citing_Ratzlaf_Ԁv.UnitedStates,510U.S.135,14648(1994)),the8thCircuit _agree[d_]withthe p districtcourtsdecisiontoinstructthejurythatthegovernmentmustmeetaheightenedmens_rea_ \ burden.Id.at440. H   Thespecificinstructionadoptedin_Ratzlaf_andthecriminaltaxcaseswasheld  inappropriateinMedicareantikickbackcasesbasedontheplainlanguageofthestatuteand  respectforthetraditionalprinciplethatignoranceofthelawisnodefense.Thecourtstated, [A]  heightenedmens_rea_standardshouldonlyrequireproofthat[thedefendant]knewthathis n conductwaswrongful,ratherthanproofthatheknewitviolatedaknownlegalduty.Therefore, Z thedistrictcourtsdefinitionofwillfullycorrectlyconstruedthe1980amendmentto F 1320a-7b.Id.at441.  2  nm@DD!  7.02.WILLFULLY n, *   *0  Noinstructionrecommendedexceptincriminaltaxcases,odometerfraudcases,health  careantikickbackstatutecases,certainsecuritiescases,andfailuretopaychildsupport x cases.d(#(# & & @55! CommitteeComments      TheCommitteerecommendsthattheword willfullynotbeusedinjuryinstructionsin ( x mostcases.Where willfullydoesnotappearinthestatute,itshouldnotbeusedinthe  d  '& indictmentortheinstructions.Wheretheword willfullydoesappearinthestatute,inmost  P  casesitcanbereplacedwiththewords voluntarilyandintentionallyintheinstructionandno  <  furtherdefinitionisneeded.SeeUnitedStatesv._Redfearn_,906F.2d352(8thCir.1990);United (  Statesv._Bettelyoun_,16F.3d850,853(8thCir.1994).TheelementsinstructionsinSection6,   supra,followthisformat.     Willfullyhasbeengivenaparticularmeaningincriminaltaxstatutes.Intax b  prosecutions willfullymaybeusedintheindictmentandintheinstructionsandshouldbe N definedasfollows: Anactisdonewillfullyifdonevoluntarilyandintentionallywiththe : purposedofviolatingaknownlegalduty.UnitedStatesv._Pomponio_,429U.S.10,12(1976); & UnitedStatesv._Jerde_,841F.2d818,821(8thCir.1988).TheSupremeCourthasdiscussedthe  variousmeaningsoftheterm willfulnessinthecriminaltaxstatutesinUnitedStatesv.Bishop,  412U.S.346(1973);Cheekv.UnitedStates,498U.S.192(1991)( willfullyinataxevasion  casemeansboththatthedefendantknewofhisdutytopaythetaxandthathevoluntarilyand  intentionallyviolatedthatduty).Thiscircuithasextendedthisdefinitionofwillfullytoodometer r fraudcasesunder15U.S.C.1990c.UnitedStatesv._Studna_,713F.2d416,418(8thCir.1983). ^ Theremaybeotherstatutesinwhich willfullyhasthisdefinition. J   In_Ratzlaf_Ԁv.UnitedStates,510U.S.135(1994),theCourtheldthatforthepurposesof  theantistructuringstatutesat31U.S.C.5313(a),5322(a)&5324(3)!whichestablish  criminalpenaltiesforanyonewho willfullyviolatedanyoftheprovisionsinthe_subchapter_Ԁ!  theterm willfullyrequiredbothknowledgeofthereportingrequirementsandaspecific p purposetodisobeythelaw. #  1      ׀ \     InUnitedStatesv.Jain,93F.3d436(8thCir.1996),theEighthCircuitinterpretedthe !" term willfullyinthehealthcareantikickbackstatute,at42U.S.C.1320a7b,torequireproof "# thatthedefendantknewhisconductwas wrongful,(aheightenedmens_rea_burden),seeJain, #$ 93F.3dat441.ThetrialcourtinJaininstructedthejurythat thewordwillfullymeans $% unjustifiablyandwrongfully,knowntobesuchbyDefendant_Swaran_ԀJain.Jain,93F.3dat n% &  440.Note,however,thatthePatientProtectionandAffordableHealthCareAct,passedin2010, Z&!' addedto1320a7bthataperson neednothaveactualknowledgeofthissectionorspecific  intenttocommitaviolationofthissection.See,NotesonUseto6.42.1320.     InUnitedStatesv._OHagan_,521U.S.642(1997),theCourt,discussingcriminalliability N under10b5oftheSecuritiesandExchangeAct,18U.S.C.78ff(a),notedthatcriminalliability : requiredthatthegovernmentprovethatapersonengagingin insidertrading willfully & violatedthesubstantiveprovisioninquestionandthatthestatutespecificallyprohibited   imprisonmentofadefendantwho proveshehadnoknowledgeofsuchruleorregulation.Id.   at664.Thisdiscussion,thoughbrief,suggeststhattheCourtmayrequireproofthatthe   defendant intentionallyviolatedaknownlegalduty.      Title18U.S.C.228prohibitsanywillfulfailuretopaylegalchildsupportobligations.  8  Thelegislativehistoryofthisactstatesthatthelanguageofthestatute willfullyfailstopayhas $  beenborrowedfromthetaxstatutesthatmakewillfulfailuretopaytaxesafederalcrime,and   includesarequirementthattheproofnecessarytoshowaviolationofthefailuretopaychild   supportstatuteistheelementofanintentionalviolationofaknownlegalduty.UnitedStatesv.   Williams,121F.3d615,62021(11thCir.1997).     on@   7.04.DELIBERATEIGNORANCE da/WILLFULBLINDNESS     Youmayfindthatthedefendant[(name)]1actedknowinglyifyoufindbeyonda  reasonabledoubtthatthedefendant[(name)]believedtherewasahighprobabilitythat(statefact : astowhichknowledgeisinquestion(e.g.,that"drugswerecontainedinhissuitcase"))andthat L  [he][she]tookdeliberateactionstoavoidlearningofthatfact.Knowledgemaybeinferredifthe   defendant[(name)]deliberatelyclosed[his][her]eyestowhatwouldotherwisehavebeen  `  obviousto[him][her].Awillfullyblinddefendantisonewhotakesdeliberateactionstoavoid r   confirmingahighprobabilityofwrongdoingandwhocanalmostbesaidtohaveactuallyknown $  thecriticalfacts.Youmaynotfindthedefendantacted knowinglyifyoufindhe/shewas 6  merelynegligent,carelessormistakenasto(statefactastowhichknowledgeisinquestion(e.g.,   that drugswerecontainedinhissuitcase)). J   [Youmaynotfindthatthedefendant[(name)]actedknowingly[ifyoufindthatthe \ defendant[(name)]actuallybelievedthat(statethepropositioninthenegative(e.g.,that"no  drugswerecontainedinhissuitcase")).]2]  p  &  @$ NotesonUse     1.Ifthereismorethanonedefendantandtheinstructiondoesnotapplytoall 4 defendants,insertthename[s]ofthedefendant[s]towhomtheinstructionapplies.   '  2.Thisclauseshouldbeincludedinaninstructionifrequestedandsupportedbythe 2! evidence.UnitedStatesv._Esquer_-_Gamez_,550F.2d1231,1235-36(9thCir.1977).Althoughno n" EighthCircuitcasestatesthisrule,theCommitteebelievesittobegoodlawandgoodpractice.  Z# SeeUnitedStatesv.Bailey,955F.2d28,29(8thCir.1992).Thisclausewasusedandupheldin F$ UnitedStatesv.Cunningham,83F.3d218,221(8thCir.1996)(inholdingtherewasnoerrorin 2% givingtheinstruction,thecourtnotedthattheinstructionwaspatternedaftertheEighthCircuit  & ModelCriminalJuryInstruction,whichwasbaseduponpriorEighthCircuitopinions). ! ' @55! CommitteeComments  #l)   Theconceptofwillfulblindnessisalimitedexceptiontotherequirementofactual ~$+ knowledge.AsstatedinGlobalTechAppliancesv.SEBS.A.,___U.S.___,___,131S.Ct. j% , 2060(2011)thereare V&!- 8  twobasicrequirements:(1)thedefendantmustsubjectivelybelievethatthereisa '#/ highprobabilitythatafactexistsand(2)thedefendantmusttakedeliberate (#0 actionstoavoidlearningofthatfact.Wethinktheserequirementsgivewillful )$1 blindnessanappropriatelylimitedscopethatsurpassesrecklessnessand |*%2 negligence.Underthisformulation,awillfullyblinddefendantisonewhotakes h+&3 deliberateactionstoavoidconfirmingahighprobabilityofwrongdoingandwho  canalmostbesaidtohaveactuallyknownthecriticalfacts.[Citationsomitted.]     Awillfulblindness(deliberateignorance)instructionshouldnotbegivenwhenthe N evidencepointssolelytoeitheractualknowledgeornoknowledgeofthefactsinquestion. : However,theinstructionhasbeenheld particularlyappropriatewhenadefendant deniesany & knowledgeofacriminalschemedespitestrongevidencetothecontrary.UnitedStatesv.   Hayes,574F.3d460,475(8thCir.2009);UnitedStatesv._Whitehill_,532F.3d746,751(8thCir.   2007),cert.denied,___U.S.___,129S.Ct.610(2008).AsstatedinUnitedStatesv.Chavez   Alvarez,594F.3d1062,1067(8thCir.2010),ajurymayfindwillfulblindnessonlyifthe    defendantwasawareoffactsthatputhimonnoticethatcriminalactivitywasprobablyafootand r   hedeliberatelyfailedtomakefurtherinquiries,intendingtoremainignorant(holdingthe ^  governmentcouldprovedefendantsintentionallyjoinedtheconspiracybyprovingthatif J  defendantswerenotactuallyawaretheywereassistingindrugdistribution,theirignorancewas 6  basedentirelyonaconsciousdecisiontoavoidlearningthetruth). "r    Theinstructionisappropriatewherethereisevidenceofactualknowledgeifthereis   sufficientevidencetosupportaninferenceofdeliberateignorance,UnitedStatesv.Lewis,557 p F.3d601,613(8thCir.2009),orwherethedefendantassertsalackofguiltyknowledgebutthe \ evidencesupportsaninferenceofdeliberateignorance,UnitedStatesv._Whitehill_,532F.3dat H 751.Ignoranceisdeliberateifthedefendantwaspresentedwithfactsputtinghimonnotice 4 criminalactivitywasparticularlylikelyandyetintentionallyfailedtoinvestigate.Id.Stated  p differently,theinstructionisproperwheretheevidence _support[s_]theinferencethatthe  \ defendantwasawareofahighprobabilityoftheexistenceofthefactinquestionandpurposely H contrivedtoavoidlearningallofthefactsinordertohaveadefenseintheeventofasubsequent 4 prosecution.UnitedStatesv.Aleman,548F.3d1158,1166(8thCir.2008)(quotingUnited   Statesv._Barnhart_,979F.2d647,651(8thCir.1992)),cert.deniedsubnom.Martinez_Menera_Ԁv.   UnitedStates,___U.S.___,129S.Ct.2756(2009). Ifreasonableinferencessupportafinding  thefailuretoinvestigateisequivalenttoburyingonesheadinthesand,thejurymayconsider  willfulblindnessasabasisforknowledge._Whitehill_,532F.3dat751.    TheEighthCircuithasheldthatajurycannotbeledtoconvictadefendantimproperlyon 2 anegligencestandardwheretheinstructionstatesthejurymustnotconcludethedefendanthad    knowledgeofcriminalactivityifhewassimplycarelessornegligent._Whitehill_,532F.3dat752. ! !   Wherethedefendantisunderaspecificdutytodiscoverfactsandthefactstenderedto #l# himaresuspicious,asforexample,inasecuritiesfraudprosecution,aninstructionthat"reckless $X$ deliberateindifferencetoordisregardfortruthorfalsity"isequivalenttoknowledge,maybe $D % properinplaceofthereferenceto"consciouspurposetoavoidlearningthetruth."UnitedStates %0!& v.Weiner,578F.2d757,787(9thCir.1978).  &"'  L  M  L  M  po@ L  M  6.18.844.ARSONOFPROPERTYUSEDINOR  @ AFFECTINGINTERSTATECOMMERCE  @(NoPersonalInjuryInvolved)  @  !(18U.S.C.844(_i_))  t   ItisacrimeforapersontoL  M  commitarson.Thiscrime,[aschargedinCount__],L  M  Ԁhas L  threeelements,:     L  M  OneL  M  ,L  M  onorabout(date),L  M  thedefendantL  M  maliciouslyL  M  [damaged][destroyed][attemptedto  `  (damage)(destroy)]L  M  Ԁ(L  M  specifytheparticularbuilding,vehicle,realorpersonalpropertyallegedin r   theindictment); $    L  M  TwoL  M  ,L  M  by[fire][usinganexplosive]L  M  1L  M  ;L  M   6    L  M  ThreeL  M  ,atthetimeofthe[fire][explosion],(specifytheparticularbuilding,vehicle,realor   personalpropertyallegedintheindictment)[wasusedin(interstate)(foreign)commerce]L  M  2L  M  Ԁ[was J usedinanactivityaffectinginterstatecommerce]. \   L  M  InL  M  terstateorforeigncommercemeansL  M  Ԁbusinessortradetakingplacebetweenpeopleor  entitieslocatedintwoormorestates,orbetweenpeopleandentitiesintheUnitedStatesand  p anothercountry(_ies_).TheGovernmentmustprovethatthepropertywasactuallyusedfora  functioninvolvingoraffectinginterstateorforeigncommerce.L  M  ԀL  M  Property"usedinanactivity 4 affectinginterstatecommerce"meansactiveuseofthepropertyforarealcommercialpurpose, F notL  M  justL  M  apassive,passing,orpastconnectiontothissortoftrade.L  M  ԀL  M  [Youmayfindaneffecton ! [interstate][foreign]commercehasbeenprovenifyoufindfromtheevidencebeyonda  Z# reasonabledoubtthat(describegovernmentsevidenceattrialofeffectoninterstateorforeign l% commerce,L  M  e.g.L  M  ,thatthebuildingwasusedasrentalproperty.)]L  M  3L  M    '   L  M  ԀToactmaliciouslymeanstoactwiththeintentthat,orwithwillfuldisregardof,the 0") likelihoodthatdamageorinjurywouldresult.4 #+   (InsertparagraphdescribingGovernmentsburdenofproof;seeInstruction3.09,supra.) $D -  @$L  M  NotesonUse  V&!/   1.Theterm explosiveisdefinedin18U.S.C.844(j)asincluding _gunpowders_, '#1 powdersusedforblasting,allformsofhighexplosives,blastingmaterials,fuses(otherthan (#2 electriccircuitbreakers),detonators,andotherdetonatingagents,smokelesspowders,other )$3 explosiveorincendiarydevices...andanychemicalcompounds,mechanicalmixture,ordevice |*%4 thatcontainsanyoxidizingandcombustibleunits,orotheringredients,insuchproportions, h+&5 quantities,orpackingthatignitionbyfire,byfriction,byconcussion,bypercussion,orby  detonationofthecompound,mixture,ordevice,oranypartthereofmaycauseanexplosion.  L  M    2.InL  M  UnitedStatesv._Rea_L  M  ,169F.3d1111,1113(8thCir.1999),L  M  vacatedonother N groundsL  M  ,530U.S.1201(2000),theEighthCircuitunequivocallyconfirmedthattheinterstate : commercerequirementofthestatuteisanelementoftheoffensewhichmustbefoundbythe & jury,ratherthanaprerequisitetosubjectmatterjurisdiction.     3.InL  M  UnitedStatesv.JonesL  M  ,id.,theSupremeCourtdeterminedthatsection844(_i_)s $ t qualificationthatabuildingmust,L  M  interalia,L  M  Ԁbeused inanyactivityaffectinginterstateor  `  foreigncommercemeans activeemploymentforcommercialpurposes,andnotmerelya  L  passive,passing,orpastconnectiontocommerce.TheCourtconcludedthattheproperinquiry  8   isintothefunctionofthebuildingitself,andthenadeterminationofwhetherthatfunction $  affectscommerce.L  M  Id.(quotingUnitedStatesv.Ryan,9F.3d660,675(8thCir.1993)(Arnold,   C.J.,concurring,inpart,anddissenting,inpart)).Clearly,underL  M  Jones,arsonofanowner   occupiedresidentialpropertyconnectedtointerstatecommercesolelybyvirtueofinterstate   receiptofutilities,amortgageandaninsurancepolicydoesnotfallundersectionL  M  844(_i_).   Further,theEighthCircuithasmadeclearthatallbuildingsmustbe usedincommerceinorder p tomeettherequirementsofsection844(_i_).L  M  UnitedStatesv._Rea_,223F.3d741(8thCir.2000) \ (church).ThisissueisdiscussedinmoredetailinL  M  UnitedStatesv._Rea_Ԁ(_Rea_ԀIII),No.012177, H slipop.(8L  M  thCir.Aug.26,2002).CompareUnitedStatesv.Harris,221F.3d1048,1050n.2(8th 4 Cir.2000).Themerestatusofbeingownedbyanoutofstateresidentdoesnotconstituteactive  p employmentininterstatecommerce,nordoesthefactthatthebuildingisabouttobeplacedon  \ themarketforsale,northatitisleasedbyapersontohiswhollyownedcompanyinapassive H legalarrangement,northatitreceivesnaturalgasfromanoutofstateprovider.L  M  UnitedStatesv. 4 RyanL  M  ,227F.3d1058(8thCir.2000).     4L  M  .Maliciousisnotdefinedwithinthestatute.L  M  Afterreviewingthelegislativehistory,the 2 FourthCircuitL  M  ԀdeterminedthatCongresscontemplatedthecommonlawmeaningoftheword n malicious.L  M  SeeUnitedStatesv._Gullett_,75F.3d941,947948(4thCir.1996).Specifically,the  Z FourthCircuitL  M  heldthatapersonwhoburntL  M  Ԁabusiness,resultinginadeathL  M  ,hadacted F "intentionally,orwithwillfuldisregardofthelikelihoodthatdamageorinjurywouldresultfrom 2 hisaction."L  M  Id.TheEighthCircuitcitedthisdefinitionwithapprovalinUnitedL  M  ԀStatesv._Whaley_,    552F.3d904,907(8thCir.2009).L  M  ԀThe_Whaley_courtconcludedtheaMissourichargeoffelony ! ! burningwasacrimeofviolence,inlightoftheCongressionalhistoryof18U.S.C.L  M  L  M  Ԁ844(_i_), "" becausethecommonlawandgenericformsofarsonproscribethemaliciousburningofrealor ## personalpropertyofanother,wheremaliciousnessmeansactingwithwillfuldisregardthat ~$$ damageorinjurywouldresult.L  M  Id.at907. j% % @! CommitteeComments:  &"'   TheCommitteebelievesthatarsoninvolvingseriousbodilyinjuryordeathshouldfollow .(~#) thesameapproachadoptedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinL  M  Jonesv.UnitedStates,526 )j$* U.S.227(1999),inwhichincreasedpenaltiesfor seriousbodilyinjuryand deathare *V%+  distinctelements,eachofwhichmustbechargedbyindictment,provenbeyondareasonable *B&, doubt,andsubmittedtoajuryforitsverdict.L  M  Seealso_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466  (2000).     TheCommitteebelievesthatthephrase activeemploymentforcommercialpurposes N canleadtojuryconfusionincertaincasesbecauseactivitiesthatcourtshavefoundtoconstitute : activeemployment(suchasuseofthebuildingasrentalproperty)maybeassumedbythejuryto & bepassiveinnature.InL  M  Jonesv.UnitedStates,529U.S.848(2000)(quotingfromRussellv.   UnitedStatesL  M  ,471U.S.858(1985)),theSupremeCourtstated theRussellopinionwentonto   observehoweverthatbyitstermsL  M  844(_i_)appliesonlytopropertythatisusedinanactivitythat   affectscommerce.Therentalofrealestateisunquestionablysuchanactivity.529U.S.848,    856.TheCommitteethereforebelievesthatthefollowinglanguageshouldalsobeaddedinan r   appropriatecase: ^    [Youmayfindaneffecton[interstate][foreign]commercehasbeenprovenifyoufind     fromtheevidencebeyondareasonabledoubt:(describegovernmentsevidenceattrial     ofeffectoninterstateorforeigncommerce,L  M  e.g.,thatthebuildingwasusedasrental     property.)]L  M     L  M  Ifthisformofinstructionisused,thejudgeshouldmakeafindingoutsidethepresenceofthe 6 jurythattheparticularuseofthepropertyisasufficientusetoaffectinterstatecommerce.  " Xp @   6.18.922A.FELONINPOSSESSIONOFFIREARM  @ (18U.S.C.922(g)) 115f     Itisacrimeforafelon1topossessafirearm,aschargedin[Count򀀀of]theindictment. t Thiscrimehasthreeelements,whichare: &   One,thedefendanthadbeenconvictedofacrimepunishablebyimprisonmentformore 8  thanoneyear;      Two,afterthat,thedefendantknowingly2[possessed][received]afirearm,thatis  L  (describeweapon);and ^    Three,thefirearmwastransportedacrossastatelineatsometimeduringorbeforethe   defendant'spossessionofit. "r    [Youareinstructedthat(listconvictionsofthedefendant,e.g.,burglary,robbery)[is][are   each][a]crime[s]punishablebyimprisonmentformorethanoneyearunderthelawsof(list 6 jurisdiction,e.g.,StateofMissouri).]3 H   [YouareinstructedthattheGovernmentandthedefendanthaveagreedthatthedefendant  hasbeenconvictedofacrimepunishablebyimprisonmentformorethanoneyearunderthelaws  \ of(listjurisdiction,e.g.,StateofMissouri),andyoumustconsiderthefirstelementasproven.] n   Ifyouhavefoundbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthefirearminquestionwas   manufacturedinastateotherthan(namestateinwhichpossessionoccurred)andthatthe 2! defendantpossessedthatfirearmintheStateof(namestateinwhichpossessionoccurred),then # youmay,butarenotrequiredto,findthatitwastransportedacrossastateline.4 F%   Theterm"firearm"meansanyweapon(includingastartergun)whichwillorisdesigned X ' toormaybereadilyconvertedtoexpelaprojectilebytheactionofanexplosive.5 ! )   (InsertparagraphdescribingGovernment'sburdenofproof;seeInstruction3.09,supra.) #l+ &  @$ NotesonUse  $D -   1.Amisdemeanorcrimeinvolvingdomesticabusemayalsobeactionableunderthis V&!/ section.See18U.S.C.921(33)(A)and922(g)(9). B'"0 '$o  2."Knowingly"isfoundinthepenaltysectionofthestatute,924. (#2    3.Crimesincludedaredefinedinsection921. *V%4   4.AdaptedgenerallyfromtheinstructionusedinBarrettv.UnitedStates,423U.S.212   (1976).    5.Thisdefinitionistakenfrom18U.S.C.921(a)(3).Otherportionsofthisdefinition N shouldbeusedwhereappropriate. : & & @55! CommitteeComments  L    SeeScarboroughv.UnitedStates,431U.S.563(1977);Barrettv.UnitedStates,423   U.S.212,215n.4(1976);2AKevinF._OMalley_,etal.,FederalJuryPracticeandInstructions:    Criminal'&L r39.09.15(5thed.2000).      TheFirearmsOwners'ProtectionActof1986amendedpriorsection922byincorporating  8  withitrelatedprovisionsof18U.S.C.App.1202(a)(l).SeeHouseRep.#99-495,reprintedin $  1986U.S.CodeCong.&Admin.News1327,1349.SeegenerallyHardy,TheFirearms   Owners'ProtectionAct:AHistoricalandLegalPerspective,17_Cumb_.L.Rev.585(1987),for   anextensivediscussionofthelegislativehistoryofthisamendment.     Inamendingsection922(g),Congressintendedbothto"enhancetheabilityoflaw J enforcementtofightviolentcrime"andto"relievethenation'ssportsmenandfirearmsowners 6 anddealersfromunnecessaryburdensundertheGunControlActof1968."HouseReportat " 1327.Thesepotentiallyconflictinggoals,coupledwithalongand,attimesconfusing,  legislativehistory,canmakeinterpretationofthisstatutedifficult.    Pursuanttothestatute,itisunlawfulforanypersonwhohasbeenconvictedofacrime  \ punishablebyimprisonmentforatermexceedingoneyeartopossessorreceiveafirearmwhere H therequiredinterstatecommercenexusisestablished.Thedefendantneednotknowthefirearm 4 wastransportedacrossstatelines.UnitedStatesv.Valiant,873F.2d205(8thCir.1989).   Challengestotheconstitutionalityofsection922(g)onthetheorythatCongressdidnothave   constitutionalauthoritytocriminalizepossessionofaweaponbyafelonjustbecausetheweapon  hadbeentransportedininterstatecommercehavebeenunsuccessful.UnitedStatesv.Lopez,514  U.S.549(1995).See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Monteleone,77F.3d1086(8thCir.1996);United  Statesv.Rankin,64F.3d338,339(8thCir.1995);UnitedStatesv._Mosby_,60F.3d454,456(8th l  Cir.1995). X !   Section921(a)(20)indicatesthatwhatconstitutesaconvictionistobedeterminedby ! # referencetothelawofthejurisdictioninwhichproceedingswereheld.Moreover,thesection "$ providesthat,whereaconvictionhasbeenexpungedorsetaside,orwhereapersonhashadhis #% orhercivilrightsrestored,thereisnoconvictionforthepurposesofthisstatute.Withregardto ~$& restorationofcivilrights,theEighthCircuithasheldthatsubstantial,nottotal,restorationis j% ' requiredtoremoveadefendantfromthereachofthestatute,butfurtherheldthatdisqualification V&!( fromservingasajurorandincertainlawenforcementpositionsdidnotconstitutesubstantial B'") restoration.Presleyv.UnitedStates,851F.2d1052(8thCir.1988).Foradiscussionofthe .(~#* differencesinthevariousstatutoryschemesfortherestorationofrightsinotherjurisdictions )j$+ withinthiscircuit,seeUnitedStatesv._Traxell_,914F.2d119(8thCir.1990);UnitedStatesv. *V%, _Woodall_,120F.3d880(8thCir.1997).Foradiscussionoftherestorationoftherighttopossess *B&- afirearm,seeCaronv.UnitedStates,524U.S.308(1998).Anystatelimitationonpossessionof +.'. aparticulartypeoffirearmbyanoffender activatestheuniformfederalbanonpossessingany  firearmsatall.Caronv.UnitedStates,524U.S.at312.Themereabsenceofastatute  prohibitingfirearmpossessionbyexfelonsdoesnotconstitutearestorationofcivilrightsfor  purposesofsection921(a)(20).UnitedStatesv.Moore,108F.3d878(8thCir.1997). t   InOldChiefv.UnitedStates,519U.S.172(1997),theSupremeCourtheldthatitwas & errorforthetrialcourttorefusetoacceptadefendantsofferofstipulationtothefactofaprior   felonyconvictionovertheobjectionoftheprosecutioninanycase"inwhichthepriorconviction   isforanoffenselikelytosupportconvictiononsomeimproperground."Inappropriatecases,   underOldChief,thetrialcourtmaybecompelledtoacceptanoffertostipulatetothefactofa    priorfelonyconviction.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Blake,107F.3d651(8thCir.1997);butsee r   OldChief,519U.S.at196(JusticeOConnordissenting). ^    TheEighthCircuithasnotdecidedwhetherjustificationandcoercioncanbedefensesto   achargeundersection922(g).SeeUnitedStatesv._Blankenship_,67F.3d673,677(8thCir.   1995)foradiscussionoftheelementsofbothdefenses.     TheEighthCircuitheldinUnitedStatesv.Richardson,439F.3d421(8thCir.2006),that J convictionsunder922(g)(1)and(g)(3)arisingoutofthesameactofpossessionshouldhave 6 beenmergedforsentencing,becauseCongressdidnotintendmultiplepunishmentsforasingle " actofpossessionofafirearm.    tX@M M  6.18.1001B.FALSESTATEMENTTOAFEDERALAGENCY  @!(18U.S.C.1001)     Itisacrimetomakea[false][fraudulent]material[representation][statement]toan t agencyoftheUnitedStatesoraboutamatterwithintheagencysjurisdiction. Thiscrime,as & chargedincount__oftheIndictment,hasfiveelements: 8  (1)0  Thedefendantknowinglyandintentionallymadethe[statement][representation][as    charged]; L (#(# (2)0  That[statement][representation]was[false][fraudulent];^ (#(# (3)0  The[statement][representation]concernedamaterialfact; (#(# (4)0  The[statement][representation]wasmadeaboutamatterwithinthejurisdictionofthe "r  [nameofthefederalagency];and (#(# (5)0  Thedefendantknewitwasuntruewhen[he][she]madethe[statement][representation].6(#(#   Astatementis falseifitwasuntruewhenitwasmade.[Astatementis fraudulentif H thedefendantmadeitwiththeintenttodeceive.]    A materialfactisafactthatwouldnaturallyinfluenceoriscapableofinfluencinga  \ decisionoftheagency.Whethera[statement][representation]is materialdoesnotdependon n whethertheagencywasactuallydeceivedormisled.     (InsertparagraphdescribingGovernmentsburdenofproof,seeInstruction3.09,supra.) 2!  @$ NotesonUse  #   1.Attentionmustbepaidtosufficientlydescribingthematterwithinfederaljurisdiction. F% Forexample,makingafalsestatementaboutyourtruenameorcriminalhistoryonan 2& immigrationdocumentcouldbedescribedinelementoneas Thedefendantknowinglyand  ' intentionallyclaimedthathehadneverbeenarrestedinhiscountryoforigin. ! (   2.Theissueofmaterialityisanelementoftheoffensewhichmustbedecidedbythe #l* jury.FollowingtheSupremeCourtdecisioninUnitedStatesv._Gaudin_,515U.S.506(1995), $X+ thestatutewasrevisedandmaterialitywasexplicitlyaddedtoeachclauseof1001(a).Seealso $D , Johnsonv.UnitedStates,520U.S.461(1997). %0!-   3.Thestatutoryrequirementthatthematterbe withinthejurisdictionofany B'"/ departmentoragencyoftheUnitedStatesappearstobeanelementoftheoffense.Traditionally, .(~#0 thisissuewastreatedasaquestionoflawforthecourt.Terryv.UnitedStates,131F.2d40,44 )j$1 (8thCir.1942)(decidedunder18U.S.C.80,apredecessortosections287and1001);seealso *V%2 Friedmanv.UnitedStates,374F.2d363,371(8thCir.1967).TheEighthCircuithasnot *B&3 addressedthisissuesince1967.However,thelogicappliedinUnitedStatesv._Gaudin_Ԁtothe +.'4 issueof materiality,maysimilarlyapplytotheissueofdepartmental/agencyjurisdiction.  Accordingly,theCommitteerecommendsthatthejuryberequiredtodecidethisissue,and  thereforeitistreatedasanelementoftheoffense.    However,theCommitteebelievesthatwhetheranentityisadepartmentoragencyofthe : UnitedStatesneednotbedeterminedbythejury,butisaquestionoflawwhichshouldbefound & bythecourt,ontherecord,beforesubmittingthecasetothejury. Departmentoragencyis   definedin18U.S.C.6;seealso5U.S.C.101(executivedepartments);UnitedStatesv.   Gould,536F.2d216(8thCir.1976)(ifthecourtreachesa conclusionthroughanexercisein   statutoryinterpretationaboutaparticularissue,theconclusionisalegislativefactthatneednot    besubmittedtothejury). r     4. Materialityinvolvesonlythecapabilityofinfluencinganagencysgovernmental $  functions,i.e.,doesthestatementhaveanaturaltendencytoinfluenceorisitcapableof   influencingagencydecision.UnitedStatesv.Whitaker,848F.2d,914,916(8thCir.1988);see   alsoUnitedStatesv.Baker,200F.3d558,561(8thCir.2000);UnitedStatesv.Johnson,937   F.2d392,396(8thCir.1991)._Gaudin_didnotdisturbthiswellrecognizeddefinition.515U.S.   at508.SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Baker,200F.3d558,561(8thCir.2000)( Themateriality p inquiryfocusesonwhetherthefalsestatementhadanaturaltendencytoinfluence,orwas \ capableofinfluencingthegovernmentagencyorofficial.);UnitedStatesv._Phythian_,529F.3d H 807,813(8thCir.2008)(same).Neitheractualreliancebythegovernment,norsuccessofthe 4 attempteddeceptionisnecessary.SeeUnitedStatesv.Johnson,937F.2d392,396(8thCir.  p 1991);Blakev.UnitedStates,323F.2d245,247(8thCir.1963).  \   5.Inordertofallwithinafederalagencysjurisdiction,itisnotnecessarythatthefalse n statementbepresenteddirectlytoafederalagency;itissufficientifthestatementismadein Z someintendedrelationshiptoamatterwithinanagencysjurisdiction.UnitedStatesv. F Richmond,700F.2d1183,118788(8thCir.1983).SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Rodgers,466U.S. 2 475(1984);UnitedStatesv.Bass,472F.2d207,212(8thCir.1973),andcasescitedtherein. n   Thedefendantneednothaveactualknowledgethatheismakingastatementwithinthe  jurisdictionofafederalagency.UnitedStatesv._Yermian_,468U.S.63,75(1984);UnitedStates l v._Hildebrandt_,961F.2d116,119(8thCir.1992);seealsoUnitedStatesv._McNeally_,132Fed. X   _Appx_Ԁ63,64(8thCir.2005).Normusttheintendedvictimofthedeceitbethefederal D!! government._Hildebrandt_,961F.2dat119.  0""    6.Thestatuteexplicitlyrequiresthattheactsmustbedone knowinglyandwillfully. #$ Theterm knowinglyisnotdefinedinthisinstructionbecauseitshouldbegivenitseveryday ~$% meaning. j% &   Theterm willfullyisincorporatedintothefifthelementoftheinstructions,which &"( requiresthatthegovernmentprovethatthedefendantknewthestatementswerefalse. '#)  Willfullyisconstruedasrequiringthattheconductbeintentional,i.e.,thatthestatementsat (#* issuebeintentionallyfalse.UnitedStatesv._Yermian_,468U.S.63,64(1984);UnitedStatesv. )$+ _Pirani_,406F.3d543,555(8thCir.2005).Althoughfraudulentintentcanbeproofofwillfulness, |*%, intenttodefraudisnotrequiredforproofofafalsestatement.SeeUnitedStatesv._Yermian_,468 h+&- U.S.63,6870(1984);UnitedStatesv._Hildebrandt_,961F.2d116,11819(8thCir.1992)( Itis  notnecessarythatthedefendantactwiththeintenttodeceivetheUnitedStates....).    7.Inadditiontobeingoneofthewaysinwhichwillfulnesscanbeestablished,theissue N of intenttodeceivealsoariseswhere fraudulentstatementsarecharged,asopposedto :  falseor fictitiousones. Fraudulentis_standardly_Ԁdefinedasinthisinstruction,anddoes & requireproofofintenttodeceive.     8.Thestatutecriminalizesstatementswhichare false,fictitiousorfraudulent.See18 $ t U.S.C.1001(a)(2).However,theterms falseand fictitiousweredescribedassynonymous  `  inthepreviousversionofthisinstruction.Thetwotermshavealsobeentreatedassynonymous  L  andinterchangeableinthecaselaw.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Baker,200F.3d558,561(8thCir.  8  2000)(referringto fictitiousaddressas false);UnitedStatesv._Popow_,821F.2d483,48689 $  (8thCir.1987)(referringtointerchangeablyto falseand fictitiousnamesandidentities).In   theinterestofsimplicity,theCommitteerecommendsusingjust falseinsteadof falseand   fictitious,unlessthelanguageoftheIndictmentortheuniquecircumstancesofthecase   otherwiserequire.   @55! CommitteeComments  6   Untilrecently,theEighthCircuitJuryInstructionsadvisedusingthreeelementsinsteadof H fiveforfalsestatement.However,EighthCircuitjurisprudenceroutinelydescribesaviolationof 4 18U.S.C.1001ashavingfiveelementswhichareessentiallythesameasthosesetforthabove.  p SeeUnitedStatesv.McCreary,628F.3d1010,1018(8thCir.2011);UnitedStatesv.Love,516  \ F.3d683,688(8thCir.2008);UnitedStatesv.Rice,449F.3d887,892(8thCir.2006).Inthe H interestofclarityandsimplicity,theCommitteehasnowseparatedtwoprevioussingleelements 4 whichcontainedmultipleessentialideasintodistinctelements.     vt @!  9.01.ENTRAPMENT z 1    Oneoftheissuesinthiscaseiswhetherthedefendantwasentrapped.Thegovernment  hastheburdenofprovingbeyondareasonabledoubtthatthedefendantwasnotentrappedby : showing either :(1)thedefendantwaswillingtocommit[insertdescriptionofcrimecharged] L  before[he][she]wasapproachedorcontactedbylawenforcementagents2orsomeoneactingfor   thegovernment; or (2)thegovernment,orsomeoneactingforthegovernment,didnotpersuade  f  ortalkthedefendantintocommitting[insertdescriptionofcrimecharged].Ifyoufindthatthe ~   governmentprovedatleastoneofthesetwothingsbeyondareasonabledoubt,thenyoumust 0  rejectthedefendantsclaimofentrapment.Ifyoufindthatthegovernmentfailedtoproveat B  leastoneofthesetwothingsbeyondareasonabledoubt,thenyoumustfindthedefendantnot   guilty. V   Thelawallowsthegovernmenttouseundercoveragents,deception,andothermethodsto h presentapersonalreadywillingtocommitacrimewiththeopportunitytocommitacrime,but  thelawdoesnotallowthegovernmenttopersuadeanunwillingpersontocommitacrime. ,| Simplygivingsomeoneafavorableopportunitytocommitacrimeisnotthesameaspersuading  [him][her]. @  & & @$ NotesonUse  R    1.Whenthisinstructionissubmitted,thegovernment'sburdenofproofthatthe " defendantwasnotentrappedmustbeincludedintheelementsinstruction.SeeInstruction3.09, # supra.This'&R,instructionshouldimmediatelyfollow. $   2.TheCommitteerecommendsthatthelawenforcementofficeroragentwhohad >& contactwiththedefendantorwhoisshownbyevidencetoberesponsibleforinducingthe  *' defendanttocommitacriminalact,designingthecriminalact,etc.,beidentifiedbynameand !( thathiscapacityasgovernmentagent,informant,etc.,bedescribed.If"agency,"ratherthanthe ") conductofanadmittedagent,isanissue,asupplementtothisinstructionmayberequired. #* & N @55! CommitteeComments  %P , 'N%  ThisinstructionhasbeenrevisedtoconformtoJacobsonv.UnitedStates,503U.S.540, b&!. 547n.1(1992),whichclarifiedtheissueof"timing."Jacobsonheldthatthegovernmentmust N'"/ provethatthedefendantwasdisposedtocommitthecriminalactpriortofirstbeingapproached :(#0 bygovernmentagents.Id.,n.2;UnitedStatesv._Loftus_,992F.2d793(8thCir.1993). &)v$1   Forgeneraldiscussionsofthelawofentrapment,seeUnitedStatesv.Norton,846F.2d *%3 521(8thCir.1988),andUnitedStatesv.Dion,762F.2d674(8thCir.1985)."Thepurpose t+&4 behindtheentrapmentdefenseistopreventlawenforcementofficersfrommanufacturing  crime."UnitedStatesv.Hinton,908F.2d355,358(8thCir.1990).Thefocusoftheentrapment  defense,however,isontheintentorpredispositionofthedefendanttocommitthecrime,rather  thanupontheconductofthegovernment'sagents.Hamptonv.UnitedStates,425U.S.484,488 t (1976).EvenafterJacobson,adefendant'sreadyresponsetoanopportunitytocommitan ` offensemayshow(1)thattherewasno"inducement,"aswellas(2)thatthedefendantwas L  independentlypredisposedtocommittheoffense.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv._LaChapelle_,969 8  F.2d632(8thCir.1992). $ t   "Entrapmentisanaffirmativedefensewhichconsistsoftwoelements:government    actiontoinduceorotherwisecausethedefendanttocommitthecrime,andthedefendant'slack r   ofpredispositiontocommitthecrime."UnitedStatesv._Pfeffer_,901F.2d654,656(8thCir. ^  1990)(citingUnitedStatesv.Foster,815F.2d1200,1201(8thCir.1987)).Adefendantis J  entitledtoanentrapmentinstructionwhenthereis"sufficientevidencefromwhichareasonable 6  jurycouldfindentrapment."UnitedStatesv.Felix,867F.2d1068,1074(8thCir.1989) "r  (quotingMathewsv.UnitedStates,485U.S.58,61(1988));seealsoUnitedStatesv._Kutrip_,670 ^  F.2d870,877(8thCir.1982).Cf.UnitedStatesv.Osborne,935F.2d32,38(4thCir.1991) J (seldom,ifever,appropriatetodecidepriortotrialthatthedefendantisnotentitledtoan 6 entrapmentinstruction).(Foralistofevidentiaryfactorsthatmayassistindeterminingwhether " anentrapmentinstructionisappropriate,seeUnitedStatesv.Dion,762F.2dat68788.)The  governmentisnotrequiredtoprovepredispositionunlessthereisevidenceofgovernment  inducementtocommittheoffense.Toshowinducement,theremustbeevidenceofgovernment  conductcreating asubstantialriskthatan_undisposed_Ԁperson...wouldcommittheoffense.  UnitedStatesv._Loftus_,992F.2dat798;UnitedStatesv.Stanton,973F.2d608,609(8thCir. n 1992). Z   Whenentrapmentisanissuetoberesolved,itisordinarilyforthejury.UnitedStatesv.   Hinton,908F.2dat357;UnitedStatesv._Pfeffer_,901F.2dat656;UnitedStatesv.Williams,873  F.2d1102,1104(8thCir.1989).Afindingofentrapmentasamatteroflaw,followedby  judgmentofacquittal,isappropriatewhentheevidenceclearlyshows(1)thatthegovernment  inducedthedefendanttoengageinthecriminalconduct,and(2)thatthedefendantlackedthe l necessarypredispositiontoperformthecriminalconduct.UnitedStatesv.Crump,934F.2d947, X  956(8thCir.1991);UnitedStatesv.Hinton,908F.2dat357;seealsoUnitedStatesv._Pfeffer_, D!  901F.2dat656.ThecourtofappealsstatedinCrump,934F.2dat956,thatthegovernment's 0"! failuretoestablishthedefendant'spredispositionwillresultinreversalofaconvictiononlywhen #l" theevidenceclearlyindicates: $X# 0   ` "[_t]hat_Ԁagovernmentagentoriginatedthecriminaldesign;thattheagent j% % implantedinthemindofaninnocentpersonthedispositiontocommittheoffense;and V&!& thatthedefendantthencommittedthecriminalactattheurgingofthegovernment." B'"' UnitedStatesv._Beissel_,901F.2d1467,1469(8thCir.1990)(quotingUnitedStatesv. .(~#( _Resnick_,745F.2d1179,1186(8thCir.1984)).)j$)(#(#   "Theissueofwhetheraninformantshouldbeconsideredagovernmentagentisgenerally |*%+ anissueoffactforthejury."UnitedStatesv.York,830F.2d885,889(8thCir.1987)(citing h+&, UnitedStatesv._Hoppe_,645F.2d630,633(8thCir.1981)).Theentrapmentdefensedoesnot  extendtoinducementbyprivatecitizensunlesstheyareactingasagentsofthegovernment.  UnitedStatesv._Leroux_,738F.2d943,947(8thCir.1984).Foradiscussionofissuesassociated  withactivitiesof"privateagents,"standingtoraisetheentrapmentdefense,and"indirect t entrapment,"seeUnitedStatesv.Neal,990F.2d355(8thCir.1993);Marcus,TheEntrapment ` Defense,802and803(1989). L    Mathewsv.UnitedStates,485U.S.58(1988),holdsthatadefendantwhodeniesthe   commissionofthecrimemayneverthelessassertandhavethejuryinstructedontheinconsistent   defenseofentrapment.However,forthedefendanttobeentitledtoaninstructionunderthese    circumstances,theremustbesufficientevidencefromwhichajurycouldfindentrapment. r   UnitedStatesv.Felix,867F.2dat1074n.11. ^    "Outrageousgovernmentconduct"inprocuringthecommissionofanoffensewhich   wouldamounttoaviolationofdueprocess,isfrequentlydiscussed,butinfrequently(ifever)   established.See_Gunderson_Ԁv._Schlueter_,904F.2d407,410n.8(8thCir,1990);UnitedStatesv.   Ford,918F.2d1343,1349(8thCir.1990),andUnitedStatesv._Musslyn_,865F.2d945(8thCir.   1989).Aclaimof"outrageousconduct"isaddressedtothecourt;nojurysubmissiononthe p issueisrequired.UnitedStatesv.Dougherty,810F.2d763,770(8thCir.1987);UnitedStatesv. \ Quinn,543F.2d640(8thCir.1976).TheEighthCircuithasacknowledgedthat"sentencing H entrapment"mayarisewhereoutrageousofficialconducthasovercomethepredispositionofa 4 defendanttocommitonlylowquantity,lowvalue(thusloweroffenselevel)crimesbyinducing  p suchapersontocommitgreatercrimessubjecttogreaterpunishmentundertheSentencing  \ Guidelines.UnitedStatesv.Nelson,988F.2d798,809(8thCir.1993);UnitedStatesv.Stein, H 973F.2d600,602(8thCir.1992).Thesecasesonlyrecognizethepossibilityof"sentencing 4 entrapment;"theopinionsdidnotfindittoexist.Asasentencingissue,"sentencingentrapment"   wouldnotbesubmittedtothejury.     Arelatedissuemayarisewhenthegovernmentagentengagesintheconductwhichforms n theonlybasisforfederaljurisdiction.SeeUnitedStatesv.Coates,949F.2d104(4thCir.1991).  Z Suchissuesareusuallyforthecourtandnotamatterforjuryinstructions. F   "Entrapmentbyestoppel"isadefensebasedonadvicefromagovernmentofficialthat X   certainconductislegal.Thedefendanthastheburdentoestablishthathewasmisledbythe D!! statementsofagovernmentofficialintobelievinghisconductwaslawful.UnitedStatesv. 0"" Austin,915F.2d363(8thCir.1990).Theissueof"entrapmentbyestoppel"isajuryissue; #l# however,ModelInstruction9.01doesnotdescribethedefense.Cf.,theproposed(butnot $X$ approved)instruction,inUnitedStatesv._LaChapelle_,969F.2dat637. $D %