Court filing

Government’s Proposed Jury Instructions — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 169, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

The Government's Proposed Jury Instructions in United States of America v. Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint, Case No. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed January 23, 2023. The government asks that the instructions be given at trial under Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The set covers the presumption of innocence and other general instructions, and an offense instruction on procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully under 18 U.S.C. § 1425. A note states that Philossaint has already pled guilty to the conspiracies with which he was charged. The set closes with a caution on punishment for a single defendant and a single count, and it is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Marc Osborne.

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

Filed January 23, 2023 in Joff Stenn Wroy Philossaint; one of 115 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2023-01-23

Cite this document

“Government’s Proposed Jury Instructions — United States v. Philossaint (Dkt. 169, S.D. Fla.).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 9:22-cr-80144, Doc. 169, filed 2023-01-23. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-joff-stenn-wroy-philossaint-flsd-619841/2023-01-23-gov-uscourts-flsd-619841-169-0-doc-169/, SHA-256 ed3b7e6f52d1722a72097fd318cc509854bfb5c36fe6aa12f1b6b0082c3c33e5.

Full text

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 22-80144-CR-Smith/Maynard(s)(s)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

JOFF STENN WROY PHILOSSAINT,

Defendant.

GOVERNMENT'S PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The United States respectfully requests that the following jury instructions be given at

trial in this case pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The

government respectfully requests that it be allowed to propose such additional instructions as

become appropriate based upon the testimony and evidence at trial, and that it be informed

prior to closing arguments which instructions the Court will accept.

Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Marc Osborne
Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID# A5500796
99 Northeast 4th Street
Miami, Florida 33132-2111
Tel: (305) 961-9198
Fax: (305) 530-7976
marc.osborne@usdoj.gov

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 2 of 11

B1
Face Page—Introduction

Members of the Jury:

It’s my duty to instruct you on the rules of law that you must use in deciding this case.

After I’ve 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 proved the specific facts necessary to

find the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 3 of 11

B2.1/B2.2
The Duty to Follow Instructions and the Presumption of Innocence

Your decision must be based only on the evidence presented during the trial. You must

not be influenced in any way by either 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 isn’t 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. A Defendant does not have to testify, and if the Defendant

chose not to testify, you cannot consider that in any way while making your decision. 1 The

Government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it fails to do so, you must find the

Defendant not guilty.

1
If all defendants testify, the Court should omit this sentence.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 4 of 11

B3
Definition of “Reasonable Doubt”

The Government's burden of proof is heavy, but it doesn’t 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’ve 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 proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so. If you

are not convinced, say so.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 5 of 11

B4
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 isn’t binding on you.

You shouldn’t assume from anything I’ve 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’s no legal difference in the weight you may give to either direct

or circumstantial evidence.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 6 of 11

Uncalled Witnesses—Equally Available to Both Sides 2
(If Applicable) 3

There are people whose names you heard during the course of the trial but did not

testify. One or more of the attorneys has referred to their absence from the trial. I instruct you

that each party had an equal opportunity or lack of opportunity to call any of these witnesses.

Therefore, you should not draw any inferences or reach any conclusions as to what they would

have testified to had they been called.

2
Adapted from 1 L. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions, Instruction 6-7 (2000). See
United States v. Esle, 743 F.2d 1465, 1477-78 (11th Cir. 1984) (after defense argued that jury
could draw a negative inference from prosecution’s failure to call a certain witness, court
properly instructed jury that “subpoena power is available to defendants, . . . but you must bear
in mind that the defendant has no burden of proof. The Government has the entire burden
of proof.”); United States v. Vincent, 648 F.2d 1046, 1051 (5th Cir. 1981) (after defense argued
that jury could draw a negative inference from prosecution’s failure to call a certain witness,
court properly “told the jury that the witness could have been called by either side, but that the
defendant was not obliged to call any witness, as he could rely on his presumption of innocence
should he choose to do so”; court also notes, “Generally, no unfavorable presumption may be
drawn from the failure to call a witness that is equally available to both sides.”); United States v.
Chapman, 435 F.2d 1245, 1247 (5th Cir. 1971) (court properly “told the jury that if there were
any witnesses in the courtroom either the Government or the Defendant had the right to call
them”; court also notes, “The long-standing rule in this circuit is that any inference from a
party’s failure to call a certain witness equally available to both parties is impermissible.”);
United States v. Bahna, 68 F.3d 19, 21-22 (2d Cir. 1995) (approving of the following instruction:
“‘There are several other persons whose names you have heard during [the] course of this trial
and one or more of the attorneys have referred to their absence from this trial. Neither the
defendant nor the government could benefit from the absence of such witnesses . . . because
each side has an equal opportunity, or lack of opportunity, to have them testify. If either side
had wanted any of them here, so far as the record shows, they had equal opportunity to get
them and absence should not affect your judgment in passing on this case or in determining
the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Bear in mind, of course, that the law never imposes
upon the defendant in a criminal case the burden of producing or calling any witnesses or
producing any evidence.’”). Courts in this district have given this instruction in United States v.
Maceira, Case No. 06-20218-CR-Seitz(s), United States v. Fernandez, Case No. 06-20322-CR-
Altonaga(s), and United States v. Pearson, Case No. 17-80080-CR-Bloom.
3
The government recommends that the Court give this instruction only if the defense makes
an argument at trial to which the instruction applies.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 7 of 11

O120
Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully
18 U.S.C. § 1425

The Defendant is charged with procuring citizenship contrary to law. 4 It’s a Federal

crime for any person to knowingly procure or attempt to procure, contrary to law, the

naturalization of any person.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this offense, only if all the following facts are

proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) the Defendant knowingly procured

(2) contrary to law

(3) the naturalization of any person.

“Naturalization” means conferring citizenship on a person after his or her birth. 5

A defendant acts “contrary to law” if the defendant knowingly makes a false statement

under oath in a proceeding or matter relating to naturalization. 6

4
The government has added this sentence to replace pattern instruction B8 (Introduction to
Offense Instructions). Pattern instruction B8 primarily discusses the distinction between
conspiracies and substantive offenses. However, Philossaint has already pled guilty to the
conspiracies with which he was charged.
5
Adapted from 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(23).
6
18 U.S.C. § 1015

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 8 of 11

B9.2
On or About a Particular Date; Knowingly

You’ll see that the indictment charges that a crime was committed “on or about” a

certain date. The Government doesn’t have to prove that the offense 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.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 9 of 11

B11
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’ll 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’re discussing the case, don’t hesitate to reexamine your own opinion

and change your mind if you become convinced that you were wrong. But don’t 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’re judges—judges of the facts. Your only interest

is to seek the truth from the evidence in the case.

Case 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 10 of 11

B12
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’ll 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 9:22-cr-80144-RS Document 169 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2023 Page 11 of 11

B10.1
Caution: Punishment
(Single Defendant, Single Count)

I caution you that the Defendant is on trial only for the specific crime charged in the

indictment. You’re here to determine from the evidence in this case whether the Defendant is

guilty or not guilty of that specific crime.

You must never consider punishment in any way to decide whether the Defendant is

guilty or not guilty. If you find the Defendant guilty, the punishment is for the Judge alone to

decide later.

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.169.0.pdf
Size: 158,470 bytes
SHA-256: ed3b7e6f52d1722a72097fd318cc509854bfb5c36fe6aa12f1b6b0082c3c33e5
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.619841.169.0.pdf
Original: archive.org