Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1

JON M. SANDS Federal Public Defender 2 District of Arizona 3 850 W. Adams, Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 4 Telephone: (602) 382-2727 MILAGROS A. CISNEROS State Bar # 020410 6 [email protected] Asst. Federal Public Defender 7 Attorney for Defendant Bella Ben-Henry
5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Bella Ben-Henry, Defendant. The United States and defendant Bella Ben-Henry, in accordance with the orders of the Court, submit their proposed joint jury instructions, attached hereto. Respectfully submitted: October 31, 2005. JON M. SANDS Federal Public Defender s/Daniel R. Drake DANIEL R. DRAKE Assistant U.S. Attorney s/Milagros A. Cisneros MILAGROS A. CISNEROS Assistant Federal Public Defender CR 04-1018-PHX-JAT PROPOSED JOINT JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Section I ­ Model Instructions If an instruction is requested by both parties, the instruction is preceded by "ST". If the instruction is requested by only one party, the instruction is preceded by a "PL" for Plaintiff or "DF" for Defendant ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST PL ST ST ST § 1.1 § 1.2 § 1.3 § 1.4 § 1.5 § 1.6 § 1.7 § 1.8 § 1.9 § 1.10 § 1.11 § 1.12 § 2.1 § 2.2 § 2.3 § 2.4 § 2.5 § 2.6 § 2.10 § 2.13 § 3.1 § 3.2 Duty of Jury The Charge­Presumption of Innocence What is Evidence What is Not Evidence Evidence for Limited Purpose Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Ruling on Objections Credibility of Witnesses Conduct of the Jury No Transcript Available to Jury Taking Notes Outline of Trial Cautionary Instruction­First Recess Bench Conferences and Recesses Stipulated Testimony Stipulations of Fact Judicial Notice Deposition as Substantive Evidence Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts of Defendant Disposition of Charge Against a Co-Defendant Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence­Presumption of Innocence­Burden of Proof
2

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 2 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DF DF ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST PL DF DF DF ST ST ST ST ST DF DF ST ST ST ST

§ 3.3 § 3.4 § 3.5 § 3.6 § 3.7 § 3.8 § 3.9 § 3.10 § 3.11 § 3.12 § 4.3 § 4.4 § 4.7 § 4.9 § 4.18 § 4.19 § 5.1 § 5.5 § 5.6 § 5.7 § 6.10 § 7.1 § 7.2 § 7.3 § 7.4

Defendant's Decision Not to Testify Defendant's Decision to Testify Reasonable Doubt - Defined What is Evidence What is Not Evidence Direct and Circumstantial Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Evidence of Other Acts of Defendant or Acts and Statements of Others Activities Not Charged Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts­Single Defendant Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of Defendant Character of Defendant Character of Witness for Truthfulness Testimony of Witnesses Involving Special Circumstances­Immunity, Benefits, Accomplice, Plea Summaries Not Received in Evidence Charts and Summaries in Evidence Aiding and Abetting Willfully - Defined Knowingly - Defined Deliberate Ignorance Public Authority or Government Authorized Defense Duty to Deliberate Consideration of Evidence Use of Notes Jury Consideration of Punishment
3

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 3 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ST ST DF

§ 7.5 § 7.6 § 8.66

Verdict Form Communication with Court False Statement to Government Agency

4

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 4 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Section II ­ Non-model instructions to which the parties have stipulated None.

5

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 5 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Section III ­ Non-model instructions requested by plaintiff, defendant's objections and alternatives

6

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 6 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Government's Requested Instruction Number 1 The defendant has claimed, as a defense to the charges in the indictment, that a federal government agent affirmatively told her that the charged conduct was permissible. The defendant has the burden of proving this defense. In order to do so, she must establish each of the following elements: One, an authorized government official was empowered to render the claimed erroneous advice; Two, that official had been made aware of all the relevant historical facts; Three, that official affirmatively told her the proscribed conduct was permissible; Four, that she relied upon that erroneous advice; and, Five, that her reliance was reasonable. A defendant's reliance is reasonable if a person sincerely desirous of obeying the law would have accepted the information as true, and would not have been put on notice to make further inquiries. AUTHORITY: United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2004)

7

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 7 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendant's Response to Government's Requested Instruction Number 1 Although the elements cited by the government in its Requested Instruction Number 1 are set forth correctly and as noted in United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d, 1210, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2004), the government leaves out a crucial component of the "entrapment by estoppel" instruction. In Batterjee, the Ninth Circuit makes clear that "[e]ntrapment by estoppel is the unintentional entrapment by an official who mistakenly misleads a person into a violation of the law." Id. at 1216. Accordingly, Ms. Ben-Henry respectfully requests that the government's Requested Instruction Number 1 be amended to add that the statements by a federal agent who affirmatively told her that the charged conduct was permissible could have been unintentional and mistakenly misleading. AUTHORITY: United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2004)

8

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 8 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Section IV ­ Non-model instructions requested by defendant, plaintiff's objections and alternatives None.

9

Case 2:04-cr-01018-JAT

Document 98

Filed 10/31/2005

Page 9 of 9