Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`vs.
`
` Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. CR18-00422-PHX-DJH
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
`JURY INSTRUCTIONS RE:
`CHARACTER EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`
`
`I. MODEL INSTRUCTIONS
`
`
`1.10
`CHARACTER EVIDENCE
`
` Where a defendant has offered evidence of good general truth and veracity,
`
`honesty and integrity, or character as a law-abiding citizen, you should consider such
`evidence along with all the other evidence in the case.
`
`Evidence of a defendant’s character, inconsistent with those traits of character
`ordinarily involved in the commission of the crime charged, may give rise to a reasonable
`doubt, since you may think it improbable that a person of good character with respect to
`those traits would commit such a crime.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Supporting Authorities
`Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases) Prepared by the Committee on Pattern Jury
`Instructions District Judges Association Fifth Circuit, 2019 Edition
`
`Note
`
`Character evidence is admissible in the form of reputation or opinion. Depending
`on the form of character evidence introduced, the appropriate bracketed language
`should be used. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(1), 405(a); United States v. John, 309 F.3d
`298 (5th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Wilson, 408 F. App’x 798, 809 (5th Cir.
`2010) (giving instructions to “consider such evidence along with all the other evidence
`in the case” and that character evidence “may give rise to a reasonable doubt, since you
`may think it improbable that a person of good character in respect to those traits would
`commit such a crime”); United States v. Callahan, 588 F.2d 1078, 1086 (5th Cir. 1979)
`(approving instruction); United States v. Leigh, 513 F.2d 784, 785–86 (5th Cir. 1975)
`(jury must be instructed that reputation evidence is considered along with – and not
`after – the other evidence in the case, and it cannot be instructed that such evidence is
`only to be used to “tip the scales” or “excuse” the defendant).
`“A character instruction is warranted only if the defendant first introduces
`admissible character evidence.” John, 309 F.3d at 303. It is generally not error to refuse
`this instruction where character evidence is not “central or crucial.” United States v.
`Baytank, 934 F.2d 599, 614 (5th Cir. 1991); see United States v. Hunt, 794 F.2d 1095,
`1099 (5th Cir. 1986) (not abuse of discretion to refuse to give the instruction because
`it did not prevent the jury from considering the character evidence, nor did it seriously
`hinder the defendant’s presentation of his defense). However, when the issue of
`character is “necessarily a vital part of [the] defense,” failure to give the instruction
`warrants reversal. John, 309 F.3d at 304–05 (refusing the above instruction was abuse
`of discretion “tantamount to impairing [defendant’s] ability to present his defense”
`where character evidence was the central theory of the defense); but see United States
`
`
`
`2
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`v. Osorio, 288 F. App’x 971, 980 (5th Cir. 2008) (not abuse of discretion to refuse
`pattern instruction because character evidence was not crucial to the defense).
`Also note that the Supreme Court has held, with respect to evidence of a
`defendant’s good character, that “such testimony alone, in some circumstances, may be
`enough to raise a reasonable doubt of guilt and that in the federal courts a jury in a
`proper case should be so instructed.” Michelson v. United States, 69 S. Ct. 213, 219
`(1948) (citing Edgington v. United States, 17 S. Ct. 72 (1896)). This has led to
`disagreement among various courts of appeal as to the propriety of “standing alone”
`language in jury instructions. See Spangler v. United States, 108 S. Ct. 2884, 2884–85
`(1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (discussing the disagreement).
`This Circuit’s instruction includes language that good character may give rise to
`reasonable doubt. See John, 309 F.3d at 303.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 4 of 4
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1912 Filed 10/25/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Oowo
`
`IDRvwBFWBN&
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`