United States District Court, E.D. California
AMENDED PROPOSED CLOSING JURY INSTRUCTIONS
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. Senior United States District Judge.
proposed closing jury instructions docketed as ECF No. 240
are amended in accordance with the United States's
Proposed Jury Instructions (Superseding) docketed as ECF No.
283. The amended proposed jury instructions are attached.
words “falsely making bonds and obligations of certain
lending agencies or” have been deleted from lines 14
and 15 of the United States's proposed jury instruction
on page 44 to reflect consistency with its deletion of those
words elsewhere in this instruction. This change is reflected
in attached Instruction No. 26.
bracketed optional language shall be clarified by a party or
the parties as soon as feasible.
will commence at 9:00 a.m. on November 28, 2017.
of the jury, now that you have heard all the evidence, it is
my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.
Each of you now possesses a copy of these instructions that
you may take to the jury room to consult if you desire.
your duty to weigh and to evaluate all the evidence received
in the case and, in that process, to decide the facts. It is
also your duty to apply the law as I give it to you to the
facts as you find them, whether you agree with the law or
not. You must decide the case solely on the evidence and the
law and must not be influenced by any personal likes or
dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathy. You will recall
that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginning of
must follow all these instructions and not single out some
and ignore others; they are all important. Please do not read
into these instructions or into anything I may have said or
done any suggestion as to what verdict you should return-that
is a matter entirely up to you.
indictment is not evidence. The defendants have pleaded not
guilty to the charges. The defendants are presumed to be
innocent unless and until the United States proves the
defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, the
defendants do not have to testify or present any evidence to
prove innocence. The United States has the burden of proving
every element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right not
to testify. You may not draw any inference of any kind from
the fact that any of the defendants did not testify.
[NAME] has testified. You should treat this testimony just as
you would the testimony of any other witness.
beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly
convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that
the United States prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common
sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise
from a careful and impartial consideration of all the
evidence, or from lack of evidence.
after a careful and impartial consideration of all the
evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendants are guilty, it is your duty to find the
defendants not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful
and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants are
guilty, it is your duty to find the defendants guilty.
evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are
(1) the sworn testimony of any witness;
(2) the exhibits received in evidence; and
(3) any facts to which the parties have agreed.
reaching your verdict you may consider only the testimony and
exhibits received in evidence. The following things are not
evidence and you may not consider them in deciding what the
1. Questions, statements, objections, and arguments by the
lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses.
Although you must consider a lawyer's questions to
understand the answers of a witness, the lawyer's
questions are not evidence. Similarly, what the lawyers and
parties have said in their opening statements, closing
arguments and at other times is intended to help you
interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts
as you remember them differ from the way the lawyers state
them, your memory of them controls.
2. Any testimony that I have excluded, stricken, or
instructed you to disregard is not evidence. [In addition,
some evidence was received only for a limited purpose; when I
have instructed you to consider certain evidence in a limited
way, you must do so.]
3. Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not
in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely
on the evidence received at the trial.
may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct
proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what
that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial
evidence is indirect evidence, that is, it is proof of one or
more facts from which you can find another fact.
to consider both direct and circumstantial evidence. Either
can be used to prove any fact. The law makes no distinction
between the weight to be given to either direct or
circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much
weight to give to any evidence.
deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which
testimony to believe and which testimony not to believe. You
may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none
considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into
(1) the witness's opportunity and ability to see or hear
or know the ...