Court filing
Proposed Jury Instructions by USA as to Casey David Crowther — USA v. Crowther (Dkt. 84)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-03-15 |
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:20-cr-00114 · Doc. 84 · 2021-03-15 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Proposed forfeiture jury instructions filed by the United States on March 15, 2021 as Doc. 84 in United States v. Casey David Crowther, Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division. The government requests the instructions for a separate forfeiture hearing if the defendant is convicted on Counts One, Two, Four, Five and/or Six of the Second Superseding Indictment and asks for a jury determination. The special jury charge covers a 2020 40' Invincible Catamaran and approximately $630,482.37 received from the agreed sale of real property, alleged forfeitable under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1). It sets a preponderance of the evidence standard and defines "derived" and "traceable". The six-page filing includes a certificate of service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM CASEY DAVID CROWTHER PROPOSED FORFEITURE JURY INSTRUCTIONS The United States of America hereby requests that, if the defendant is convicted of the offenses charged in Counts One, Two, Four, Five and/or Six of the Second Superseding Indictment, and, if the Court grants a request by the defendant for a jury determination regarding the forfeiture of the specific assets identified in the Second Superseding Indictment, and more specifically described in the Bill of Particulars, the following proposed jury instructions be given during the separate forfeiture hearing following the conviction. Respectfully Submitted, KARIN B. HOPPMANN Acting United States Attorney By: s/Suzanne C. Nebesky Suzanne C. Nebesky Assistant United States Attorney Fla. Bar No. 59377 400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Tel: (813) 274-6000 E-mail: suzanne.nebesky@usdoj.gov Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID 345 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that March 15, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to counsel of record. s/Suzanne C. Nebesky Suzanne C. Nebesky Assistant United States Attorney Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID 346 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 2:20-cr-114-JES-MRM CASEY DAVID CROWTHER SPECIAL JURY CHARGE FORFEITURE Members Of The Jury: Your verdict in this case does not complete your jury service, as it would in most cases, because there is another matter you must now consider and decide, namely, whether there is a nexus between certain assets identified in the Second Superseding Indictment, and more specifically described in the Bill of Particulars, and the crime(s) for which the defendant was convicted. In a section of the Second Superseding Indictment not previously disclosed to you, it is alleged that certain assets (1) represent property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the bank fraud schemes charged in Counts One and/or Five; (2) represent property constituting, or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from making a false statement to a lending institution as charged in Counts Two and/or Six; and/or (3) constitute property involved in the money laundering offense charged in Count Four, or is property traceable to such property. Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID 347 In view of your guilty verdict(s), you must also decide, under the law I will now explain to you, whether such assets should be forfeited to the United States. The term "forfeited" simply means for someone to be divested or deprived of the ownership of something as a part of the punishment allowed by law for the commission of certain criminal offenses. In deciding these issues, you should consider all of the evidence you have already heard during the trial plus the additional evidence that will be presented to you when I finish giving you these instructions. The forfeiture allegations of the Second Superseding Indictment, and the Bill of Particulars, copies of which will be provided to you for your consideration during supplemental deliberations, describe a 2020 40’ Invincible Catamaran, Hull ID# IVBC0076D920, registered to and owned by the defendant, and real property located at 3653 San Carlos Drive, Saint James City, Florida 33956. The real property has been sold by agreement of the parties, and the parties have agreed that the United States will seek to forfeit the defendant’s interest in approximately $630,482.37 received from the sale of the real property in lieu of the property itself. The Second Superseding Indictment and Bill of Particulars allege that these assets are subject to forfeiture to the United States, (1) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A), as property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from the bank fraud schemes charged in Counts One and/or Five, and/or making a false statement to a lending institution charged in Counts Two and/or Six; and/or (2) pursuant to 18 Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID 348 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1), as property involved in the money laundering offenses charged in Count Four, or as property traceable to such funds. In order to forfeit the property identified above, the United States must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the assets (1) represent property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from the bank fraud schemes; and/or (2) represent property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, from making a false statement to a lending institution; and/or (3) constitute property involved in the money laundering offense, or is property traceable to such property. A "preponderance of the evidence" simply means an amount of evidence which is enough to persuade you that a claim or contention is more likely true than not true. To be “derived” from something means that the property under consideration must have been formed or developed out of the original source so as to be directly descended from that source. To be “traceable” to something means that the property under consideration must have followed an ascertainable course or trail in successive stages of development or progress from the original source. While deliberating concerning the issue of forfeiture, you must not reexamine your previous determination regarding the defendant’s guilt. However, all of the instructions previously given to you concerning your consideration of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, your duty to deliberate together, your duty to base Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID 349 your verdict solely on the evidence without prejudice, bias or sympathy, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict, will continue to apply during these supplemental deliberations. Case 2:20-cr-00114-JES-M_M Document 84 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID 350
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.381779.84.0.pdf
- Size
- 92,736 bytes
- SHA-256
- c1456583a0b5ff6cd230a70d30e5ebfa4b6acfa2c989efe740697887b8a18001
- Original
- PACER (login required)