Jury Instructions

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the convictions of a Metropolitan Police Department officer under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for using prohibited neck restraints on two individuals, rejecting arguments relating to the trial court’s jury instructions on willfulness, the government’s evidence versus the allegations in the indictment, the court’s answers to jury questions, and several evidentiary rulings.

In a tax fraud conspiracy appeal, the Tenth Circuit vacated the defendant’s § 371 conviction where the district court plainly erred in instructing the jury on the elements of the “offense” clause under § 371 instead of the “defraud” clause. The trial court also plainly erred when it limited the advice of counsel instruction to the substantive count and instructed the jury that advice of counsel was not a defense to the conspiracy count.

In a rare challenge to Congress’s power under Thirteenth Amendment, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction of Jordan Leahy under 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2)(B) for racially motivated violent interference with another’s use of a public road. The Court held that § 245(b)(2)(B) is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s authority under the Thirteenth Amendment, and rejected challenges to the jury instructions, the handling of jury questions, and the sufficiency of the evidence. Here, there was amply evidence that the defendant was motivated by the victim’s race and use of the road.

The Second Circuit affirmed a district court’s order acquitting a defendant of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, holding that the defendant, who worked for a U.K. subsidiary of a U.S. company involved in bribing Indonesian officials, was not an “agent” or employee” of the U.S. company under common law. The Court also held that the defendant’s speedy trial rights were not violated by a 6-year delay and that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on withdrawal from a conspiracy and proving venue in a case involving money transfers through multiple states.

Alfonzo Lewis was convicted of drug offenses and challenged his arrest, jury selection, and other aspects of his trial on appeal. Lewis had initially been investigated by a federal drug task force that included state and local agents. After agents witnessed him leaving a house after a drug transaction, local law enforcement conducted a traffic […]

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution in a “pill mill” case, where a doctor has been charged with unlawfully prescribing drugs, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the doctor was acting in a manner not authorized by the statute, i.e. that the doctor knew that their prescribing practices were unauthorized and was not acting in “good faith.” Previously, doctors could be convicted if their prescriptions were not for a legitimate purpose or otherwise not within the usual course of a professional medical practice–a standard resembling negligence.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime under 924(c). The trial court had erroneously instructedhe jury that it could find the defendants guilty of those charges if they used or carried a firearm in relation to either the “crime of violence” charged by their RICO conspiracy count or the drug trafficking crime charged, but RICO is not a “crime of violence” under Fifth Circuit precedent.

The Fifth Circuit reversed a defendant’s conviction for possession of a firearm by someone adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty based on finding he was either adjudicated a mental defective OR had previously been committed, though the indictment only alleged the former and not the latter.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to vacate their sentence under 28 USC 2255. The Court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting in an unlawful possession of a firearm case where the government did not present any evidence that the defendant knew his co-defendant was prohibited from possessing firearms. The Court also held that Rehaif is retroactive to cases on collateral review and discussed the standard for procedural default under 2255 at length.

The Sixth Circuit vacated a defendant’s sentence and remanded for new trial on the limited issue of whether he was within the “chain of distribution” of the drugs that resulted in the victims’ deaths.