Court filing
Proposed Voir Dire Questions by USA as to Dustin Sean McCabe — USA v. McCabe (Dkt. 50, S.D. Fla.)
Filed February 10, 2025 in USA v. McCabe; one of 219 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-02-10 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:24-cr-80103-AMC · Doc. 50 · 2025-02-10 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-80103-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DUSTIN SEAN McCABE,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
Pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Court’s pre-trial
scheduling order, the United States of America, through the undersigned Assistant United States
Attorney, requests that the Court include in its voir dire the following questions:
1.
One of the crimes charged in this case requires the Government to prove only that
the Defendant engaged in what the law calls “simple negligence,” meaning that the Defendant
owed a duty to the victim, he breached that duty, and that his breach of duty resulted in harm to
the victim. That “negligence” standard means that the Government does not need to prove that the
Defendant acted knowing that his conduct would cause harm or intending that his conduct cause
harm. Does anyone believe they could not follow my instructions by applying this lower standard
to the facts as you determine them in this criminal case?
2.
This case involves three different types of crimes charged in five counts, and the
Court will instruct you to consider each count separately based on your review of the evidence
relevant to that count. So, you can’t say to yourself, “Well, I think the Defendant committed one
of the crimes, so he must have committed another one.” Does anyone here believe they would have
difficulty following my instructions on this issue?
3.
This case concerns events that occurred in 2020 and 2021 and that were charged by
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2025 Page 1 of 2
2
indictment last year. Does anyone here believe that the amount of time that passes between events
happening and then later being charged as a crime has any bearing on the merits of the case?
4.
When people apply for things like loans or vehicle registrations, they are often
required to provide information in a form and then sign the form under a notice that they can be
prosecuted for knowingly making a false statement in the form. Does anyone believe that people
making false statements on these types of loan or registration forms is not a big deal, or at least
should not be punished criminally?
5.
The United States must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond
all possible doubt. As I will explain at the end of the trial, “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is
proof so convincing that you would be willing to rely and act on it without hesitation in the most
important of your own affairs, but no more. Does anyone think that the United States’ burden
should be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt?
Respectfully submitted,
HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
Date: February 10, 2025
By: /s/ Zachary A. Keller
ZACHARY A. KELLER
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office – SDFL
Court No: A5502767
99 NE 4th Street, 6th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
Tel: (305) 961-9023
Email: zachary.keller@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 10, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
/s/ Zachary A. Keller 0
Zachary A. Keller
Assistant United States Attorney
Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2025 Page 2 of 2File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.673624.50.0.pdf
- Size
- 126,376 bytes
- SHA-256
- ed3fb0da2bae48ff9fb12629dd24fc1217de7e4d92395e475ff31ba41df430be
- Original
- PACER (login required)