Court filing
Court's Final Jury Instructions. See attached document for full details — USA v. McCabe (Dkt. 77, S.D. Fla.)
Filed March 4, 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 | 2025-03-04 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:24-cr-80103-AMC · Doc. 77 · 2025-03-04 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 24-80103-CR-CANNON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DUSTIN SEAN McCABE, Defendant. / COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY Members of the Jury: It is my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding this case. After I have completed these instructions, you will go to the jury room and begin your discussions—what we call your deliberations. You must decide whether the Government has proven the specific facts necessary to find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 1 of 19 2 The Duty to Follow Instructions and the Presumption of Innocence Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented here. You must not be influenced in any way either by sympathy for or prejudice against the Defendant or the Government. You must follow the law as I explain it—even if you do not agree with the law—and you must follow all of my instructions as a whole. You must not single out or disregard any of the Court’s instructions on the law. The indictment or formal charge against a defendant is not evidence of guilt. The law presumes every defendant is innocent. The Defendant does not have to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the Defendant not guilty. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 2 of 19 3 Definition of “Reasonable Doubt” The Government’s burden of proof is heavy, but it does not have to prove a Defendant’s guilt beyond all possible doubt. The Government’s proof only has to exclude any “reasonable doubt” concerning the Defendant’s guilt. A “reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based on your reason and common sense after you have carefully and impartially considered all the evidence in the case. “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. If you are convinced that the Defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you are not convinced, say so. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 3 of 19 4 Consideration of Direct and Circumstantial Evidence; Argument of Counsel; Comments by the Court As I said before, you must consider only the evidence that I have admitted in the case. Evidence includes the testimony of witnesses and the exhibits admitted. But anything the lawyers say is not evidence and is not binding on you. You should not assume from anything I have said that I have any opinion about any factual issue in this case. Except for my instructions to you on the law, you should disregard anything I may have said during the trial in arriving at your own decision about the facts. Your own recollection and interpretation of the evidence is what matters. In considering the evidence you may use reasoning and common sense to make deductions and reach conclusions. You shouldn’t be concerned about whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. “Direct evidence” is the testimony of a person who asserts that he or she has actual knowledge of a fact, such as an eyewitness. “Circumstantial evidence” is proof of a chain of facts and circumstances that tend to prove or disprove a fact. There is no legal difference in the weight you may give to either direct or circumstantial evidence. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 4 of 19 5 Credibility of Witnesses When I say you must consider all the evidence, I do not mean that you must accept all the evidence as true or accurate. You should decide whether you believe what each witness had to say, and how important that testimony was. In making that decision you may believe or disbelieve any witness, in whole or in part. The number of witnesses testifying concerning a particular point does not necessarily matter. To decide whether you believe any witness I suggest that you ask yourself a few questions: • Did the witness impress you as one who was telling the truth? • Did the witness have any particular reason not to tell the truth? • Did the witness have a personal interest in the outcome of the case? • Did the witness seem to have a good memory? • Did the witness have the opportunity and ability to accurately observe the things he or she testified about? • Did the witness appear to understand the questions clearly and answer them directly? • Did the witness’s testimony differ from other testimony or other evidence? Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 5 of 19 6 Persons Not on Trial and Unavailable Witness Some of the people who may have been involved in these events are not on trial. This does not matter. There is no requirement that all persons be charged and prosecuted in one proceeding. You may not draw any inference, favorable or unfavorable, towards the Government or the Defendant on trial from the fact that any person in addition to the Defendant is not on trial here. You may also not speculate as to the reasons why other persons are not on trial. Finally, you heard references during the trial to an individual by the name of John Miller. You should draw no inference from Mr. Miller’s absence from this trial because he was not available to either side. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 6 of 19 7 Impeachment of Witnesses Because of Inconsistent Statements You should also ask yourself whether there was evidence that a witness testified falsely about an important fact. And ask whether there was evidence that, at some other time, a witness said or did something, or did not say or do something, that was different from the testimony the witness gave during this trial. But keep in mind that a simple mistake does not mean a witness was not telling the truth as he or she remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some things or remember them inaccurately. So, if a witness misstated something, you must decide whether it was because of an innocent lapse in memory or an intentional deception. The significance of your decision may depend on whether the misstatement is about an important fact or about an unimportant detail. A defendant has a right not to testify. But since the Defendant did testify, you should decide whether you believe the Defendant’s testimony in the same way as that of any other witness. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 7 of 19 8 Expert Witnesses When scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge might be helpful, a person who has special training or experience in that field is allowed to state an opinion about the matter. But that does not mean you must accept the witness’s opinion. As with any other witness’s testimony, you must decide for yourself whether to rely upon the opinion. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 8 of 19 9 Introduction to Offense Instructions The indictment charges five separate crimes, called “counts,” against the Defendant. Each count has a number. You will be given a copy of the indictment to refer to during your deliberations. Count One charges the Defendant with seaman’s manslaughter. Count Two charges the Defendant with making a false statement within the jurisdiction of an agency of the United States. Counts Three, Four, and Five charge the Defendant with wire fraud. These five counts charge the Defendant with committing what are called “substantive offenses.” I will explain the law governing those substantive offenses in a moment. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 9 of 19 10 On or About; Knowingly; Willfully – Generally You will see that the indictment charges that a crime was committed “on or about” a certain date. The Government does not have to prove that the crime occurred on an exact date. The Government only has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed on a date reasonably close to the date alleged. The word “knowingly” means that an act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of a mistake or by accident. The word “willfully” means that the act was committed voluntarily and purposely, with the intent to do something the law forbids; that is, with the bad purpose to disobey or disregard the law. While a person must have acted with the intent to do something the law forbids before you can find that the person acted “willfully,” the person need not be aware of the specific law or rule that his conduct may be violating. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 10 of 19 11 Caution: Separate Counts and Punishment Each count of the indictment charges a separate crime. You must consider each crime and the evidence relating to it separately. If you find the Defendant guilty or not guilty of one crime, that must not affect your verdict for any other crime. I caution you that the Defendant is on trial only for the specific crimes charged in the indictment. You are here to determine from the evidence in this case whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of those specific crimes. You must never consider punishment in any way to decide whether the Defendant is guilty. If you find the Defendant guilty, the punishment is for the Judge alone to decide later. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 11 of 19 12 Seaman’s Manslaughter (Count 1) 18 U.S.C. § 1115 Count One charges the Defendant with seaman’s manslaughter. It is a Federal crime for a captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on a vessel to engage in misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties that proximately causes the loss of life, or for an owner or charterer of a vessel to engage in fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law that proximately causes the loss of a life. The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all of the following facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) The Defendant was an owner, charterer, captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on the M/V SOUTHERN COMFORT. (2) A person lost his or her life; and (3) The Defendant was a captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on the vessel, and a loss of life was proximately caused by the Defendant’s misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on the vessel; or The Defendant was an owner or charterer of the vessel, and a loss of life was proximately caused by the Defendant’s fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law as the owner or charterer of the vessel “Negligence” is a breach of duty, which means an omission to perform some duty, or a violation of some rule or standard of care, which is made to govern and control one in the discharge of some duty. Negligent conduct “proximately causes” a loss of life if the loss of life resulted from the negligence and it was reasonably foreseeable that the negligent conduct was or could be a threat to the lives of others. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 12 of 19 13 As you will see in the Verdict Form, when evaluating the third element for Count One, you must decide each of the two subparts separately. First, if you unanimously decide that the Defendant was a captain, engineer, pilot, or other person employed on the vessel, then you must decide whether a loss of life was proximately caused by the Defendant’s misconduct, negligence, or inattention to his duties on the vessel. Second, if you unanimously decide that the Defendant was an owner or charterer of the vessel, then you must decide whether a loss of life was proximately caused by the Defendant’s fraud, neglect, connivance, misconduct, or violation of law as the owner or charterer of the vessel. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 13 of 19 14 False Statement to a Federal Agency (Count 2) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 It is a Federal crime to willfully make a false or fraudulent statement to a department or agency of the United States. The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the Defendant made the statement as charged; (2) the statement was false; (3) the falsity concerned a material matter; (4) the Defendant acted willfully, knowing that the statement was false; and (5) the false statement was made or used for a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States. A statement is “false” when made or used if it is untrue when made and the person making or using it knows it is untrue. The Government doesn’t have to show that the Governmental agency or department was, in fact, deceived or misled. The United States Coast Guard is an agency of the United States. Filing documents with that agency relating to a vessel’s use or status is a matter within that agency’s jurisdiction. The making of a false statement is not a crime unless the falsity relates to a “material” fact. A “material fact” is an important fact—not some unimportant or trivial detail—that has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision of a department or agency in reaching a required decision. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 14 of 19 15 Wire Fraud (Counts 3, 4, and 5) 18 U.S.C. § 1343 It is a Federal crime to use interstate wire, radio, or television communications to carry out a scheme to defraud someone else. The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the Defendant knowingly devised or participated in a scheme to defraud someone by using false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; (2) the false pretenses, representations, or promises were about a material fact; (3) the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and (4) the Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted by wire some communication in interstate commerce to help carry out the scheme to defraud. A “scheme to defraud” means any plan or course of action intended to deceive or cheat someone out of money or property by using false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. A statement or representation is “false” or “fraudulent” if it is about a material fact that the speaker knows is untrue or makes with reckless indifference to the truth, and makes with the intent to defraud. A statement or representation may be “false” or “fraudulent” when it is a half-truth, or effectively conceals a material fact, and is made with the intent to defraud. A “material fact” is an important fact that a reasonable person would use to decide whether to do or not do something. A fact is “material” if it has the capacity or natural tendency to influence a person’s decision. It doesn’t matter whether the decision-maker actually relied on the statement or knew or should have known that the statement was false. To act with “intent to defraud” means to act knowingly and with the specific intent to use false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises to cause loss or injury. Proving intent Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 15 of 19 16 to deceive alone, without the intent to cause loss or injury, is not sufficient to prove intent to defraud. The Government does not have to prove all the details alleged in the indictment about the precise nature and purpose of the scheme. It also does not have to prove that the material transmitted by interstate wire was itself false or fraudulent; or that using the wire was intended as the specific or exclusive means of carrying out the alleged fraud; or that the Defendant personally made the transmission over the wire. And it does not have to prove that the alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone. To “use” interstate wire communications is to act so that something would normally be sent through wire, radio, or television communications in the normal course of business. Each separate use of the interstate wire communications as part of the scheme to defraud is a separate crime. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 16 of 19 17 No Defense to Blame Victim It is not a defense to the crime of wire fraud that the victim could have done something more than it did to prevent the offense. In other words, if you find that the Government has proven all of the elements of wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, it is no defense that such fraud might not have occurred if the victim had acted with greater care. Therefore, any evidence that the victim could have done something to prevent any fraud which you find occurred, or evidence that its procedures were somehow deficient, should not be considered by you as an excuse or defense to any wire fraud which you find has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 17 of 19 18 Duty to Deliberate Your verdict, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous—in other words, you must all agree. Your deliberations are secret, and you will never have to explain your verdict to anyone. Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but only after fully considering the evidence with the other jurors. So you must discuss the case with one another and try to reach an agreement. While you are discussing the case, do not hesitate to reexamine your own opinion and change your mind if you become convinced that you were wrong. But do not give up your honest beliefs just because others think differently or because you simply want to get the case over with. Remember that, in a very real way, you are judges—judges of the facts. Your only interest is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 18 of 19 19 Verdict When you get to the jury room, choose one of your members to act as foreperson. The foreperson will direct your deliberations and will speak for you in court. A verdict form has been prepared for your convenience. [Explain verdict] Take the verdict form with you to the jury room. When you’ve all agreed on the verdict, your foreperson must fill in the form, sign it, date it, and carry it. Then you’ll return it to the courtroom. If you wish to communicate with me at any time, please write down your message or question and give it to the marshal. The marshal will bring it to me, and I will respond as promptly as possible—either in writing or by talking to you in the courtroom. But I caution you not to tell me how many jurors have voted one way or the other at that time. Case 9:24-cr-80103-AMC Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2025 Page 19 of 19
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.673624.77.0.pdf
- Size
- 56,955 bytes
- SHA-256
- ee369c3485e9a379c59fbf71b79426179f02bc05c8e5d2e2c4b74998127a9b1e
- Original
- PACER (login required)