Court filing

Court’s Instructions to the Jury — United States v. Grenon (Dkt. 174, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

These are the court's instructions to the jury in United States v. Mark Scott Grenon, Jonathan David Grenon, Jordan Paul Grenon and Joseph Timothy Grenon, Case No. 21-20242-CR-ALTONAGA/TORRES in the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket on 07/06/2023. Count One charges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate specific criminal laws; its three objects are the functions of the FDA, introducing an unapproved new drug into interstate commerce, and distributing a misbranded drug. Counts Two and Three charge that Defendants Jonathan and Jordan Grenon committed contempt of court. The instructions tell jurors the Defendants decided to represent themselves and that this must not affect their verdict. A blank verdict form closes the document.

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 July 6, 2023 in Mark Scott Grenon; one of 22 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2023-07-06

Cite this document

“Court’s Instructions to the Jury — United States v. Grenon (Dkt. 174, S.D. Fla.).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:21-cr-20242, Doc. 174, filed 2023-07-06. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/us-v-mark-scott-grenon/2023-07-06-court-s-instructions-to-the-jury-dkt-174/, SHA-256 b1cdb5f59aeeef0ee3e2dd83d5d93e0bb0fac29e8384ef0b76f0352dd3c2f0a3.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-20242-CR-ALTONAGA/TORRES

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

MARK SCOTT GRENON,
JONATHAN DAVID GRENON,
JORDAN PAUL GRENON, and
JOSEPH TIMOTHY GRENON,

Defendants.
________________________________/

COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY

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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 2 of 31

B2.2

The Duty to Follow Instructions and the Presumption of Innocence When a
Defendant Does Not Testify

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 isn’t evidence of guilt. The law presumes every Defendant is innocent. The

Defendant does not have to prove his or her 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. The Government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If

it fails to do so, you must find the Defendant not guilty.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 3 of 31

Pro Se Defendant

The Defendants have decided to represent themselves in this trial and not to use the services

of a lawyer. They have a constitutional right to do that. Their decision has no bearing on whether

they are guilty or not guilty, and it must not affect your consideration of the case.

Because each Defendant has decided to act as his own lawyer, you may hear a Defendant

speak at various times during the trial. They may make an opening statement and closing argument

and may ask questions of witnesses, make objections, and argue legal issues to the court. I want to

remind you that when a Defendant speaks in these parts of the trial, he is acting as a lawyer in the

case, and his words are not evidence. The only evidence in this case comes from witnesses who

testify under oath on the witness stand and from exhibits that are admitted.

SOURCE:

Ninth Circuit, Manual Model of Criminal Jury Instructions (2010), Instruction 1.15; Eighth
Circuit, Criminal Jury Instructions § 2.23. The first paragraph above, based upon these sources,
was given recently in United States v. Longsworth, Case 1:23-cr-20017-RAR (ECF49). We ask
that the Court give this instruction at the start of trial and/or in its final instructions. If standby
counsel participates, additional language may be appropriate.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 4 of 31

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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 5 of 31

B4 (modified)
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. Anything the lawyers say

is not evidence and isn’t binding on you. In addition, anything the Defendant may say that is not

admitted by me as evidence is not 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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 6 of 31

B5
Credibility of Witnesses

When I say you must consider all the evidence, I don’t 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

doesn’t 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?

NOTE: If the defendants are allowed to testify and do testify without taking an oath, subject to
FRE 603, the jury should be instructed to consider as well “Did the witness swear an oath to tell
the truth?”

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 7 of 31

B7
Expert Witness
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 doesn’t 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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 8 of 31

B8
Introduction to Offense Instructions

The indictment charges three separate crimes, called “counts.” Each count has a number.

You’ll be given a copy of the indictment to refer to during your deliberations.

In summary, Count One charges that the Defendants knowingly and willfully engaged in a

conspiracy to defraud the United States, specifically the United States Food and Drug

Administration (the “FDA”), and also to violate specific criminal laws of the United States.

Counts Two and Three charge that Defendants Jonathan and Jordan Grenon committed

contempt of court, which is a “substantive offense.” I will explain the law governing that

substantive offense in a moment.

But first note that the Defendants are not charged in Count 1 with committing a substantive

offense – they are charged with conspiring to commit an offense. I will now give you specific

instructions on conspiracy.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 9 of 31

O13.1 & 13.6 (consolidated)
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Commit an Offense Against the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371

It’s a separate Federal crime for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to defraud

the United States or one of its agencies such as the FDA, or to conspire or agree to do something

that would be another Federal crime if it were actually carried out.

A “conspiracy” is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act. In other

words, it is a kind of partnership for criminal purposes. Every member of the conspiracy becomes

the agent or partner of every other member.

The Government does not have to prove that all the people named in the indictment were

members of the plan, or that those who were members made any kind of formal agreement.

The Government does not have to prove that the members planned together all the details

of the plan or the “overt acts” that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to

commit the intended crime

The heart of a conspiracy is the making of the unlawful plan itself followed by the

commission of any overt act. The Government does not have to prove that the conspirators

succeeded in carrying out the plan.

The Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all the following facts are proved

beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) two or more persons in some way agreed to try to accomplish a shared and unlawful
plan;

(2) the Defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined in it;

(3) during the conspiracy, one of the conspirators knowingly engaged in at least one
overt act as described in the indictment; and

(4) the overt act was committed at or about the time alleged and with the purpose of
carrying out or accomplishing some object of the conspiracy.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 10 of 31

An “overt act” is any transaction or event, even one that may be entirely innocent when

viewed alone, that a conspirator commits to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

A person may be a conspirator without knowing all the details of the unlawful plan or the

names and identities of all the other alleged conspirators.

If the Defendant played only a minor part in the plan but had a general understanding of

the unlawful purpose of the plan and willfully joined in the plan on at least one occasion, that’s

sufficient for you to find the Defendant guilty.

But simply being present at the scene of an event or merely associating with certain people

and discussing common goals and interests doesn’t establish proof of a conspiracy. A person who

doesn’t know about a conspiracy but happens to act in a way that advances some purpose of one

doesn’t automatically become a conspirator.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 11 of 31

O13.2
Multiple Objects of a Conspiracy
(modified)

Count 1 charges that the Defendants conspired to defraud the United States, and also

conspired to commit two substantive Federal crimes: distributing an unapproved new drug, and

distributing a misbranded drug. In other words, the Defendants are charged with conspiring to do

three things; these are called the “objects” of the conspiracy.

The Government does not have to prove that the Defendant willfully conspired to commit

all three objects of the conspiracy. In other words, the Government does not have to prove that

the Defendant conspired to defraud the FDA and to commit the offense of distributing an

unapproved new drug and to commit the offense of distributing a misbranded drug. It is sufficient

if the Government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant willfully conspired to

commit one of those objects. But to find the Defendant guilty of Count 1, you must all agree about

which object(s) the Defendant conspired to commit.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 12 of 31

Count One: Object of the Conspiracy #1: Functions of the FDA

The first object of the criminal conspiracy charged in Count 1 is that the Defendants

conspired to defraud the Unites States, specifically the FDA.

To “defraud” the FDA, for purposes of this charge, means to interfere with any of the

FDA’s lawful functions by deceit, craft, or trickery, even if the FDA does not suffer a loss of

money or property.

The FDA has broad authority to regulate drugs in the United States in order to protect the

health and safety of consumers. This broad authority includes the lawful functions to: (a) regulate

the interstate distribution of drugs and their components; (b) ensure that drugs are safe and

effective for their intended uses; (c) prevent the unlawful sale and distribution of drugs not

approved for sale and distribution in the United States; (d) ensure that drugs where required bear

adequate directions for use; and (e) ensure that drugs are manufactured only in duly-registered

facilities.

SOURCE:

O13.6 and United States v. Boccuzzi, 19-80030-Cr-WPB (ECF578) (defining “defraud” the United
States) (cf. United States v. Ballistrea, 101 F.3d 827, 831-32 (2nd Cir. 1996) (stressing that it is
unnecessary to prove a financial or property loss to the Government)); 21 U.S.C. §§ 321, 331, 342,
343, 348, 350-355b, 374, 378, 379aa, 379aa-1, 393; 21 C.F.R. Parts 1-1499 (regarding FDA’s
functions).

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 13 of 31

Count One: Object of the Conspiracy #2: Introducing an Unapproved New Drug into
Interstate Commerce

The second object of the criminal conspiracy charged in Count 1 is that the Defendants

conspired to commit an offense against the United States; specifically, to violate the FDCA, which

makes it a Federal crime for anyone to cause the introduction or delivery for introduction into

interstate commerce of any unapproved new drug. The Government alleges that “Miracle Mineral

Solution” was a “new drug,” as that term is defined later in these instructions, and that the FDA

had not approved Miracle Mineral Solution for introduction or delivery for introduction into

interstate commerce.

A Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all of the following facts are proved

beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that the Defendant caused a new drug to be introduced or delivered for introduction
into interstate commerce;

(2) the new drug was, at the time, an unapproved new drug, as defined below; and

(3) that the Defendant acted with intent to defraud or mislead.
An article is a “drug” if it is intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment,

or prevention of disease in humans, or if it is intended to affect the structure or any function of the

human body. It is the intended use of a substance which determines whether it is a drug under the

FDCA and not the nature or composition of the article, or whether and how the article actually

affects the structure or any function of the human body.

A product’s intended use is what a reasonable person would conclude the manufacturer or

seller intended, based on all of the relevant information. You can determine the intended use of a

product by considering the label, accompanying labeling, promotional material, advertising, oral

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 14 of 31

representations made about the product, the circumstances surrounding the distribution of the

article, and information from any other source which discloses intended use.

The term “new drug,” as pertinent here, means “any drug ... the composition of which is

such that such drug is not generally recognized, by experts qualified by scientific training and

experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the

conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof.” The Government does

not have to show a product is new in the sense that it was recently made or, in fact, unsafe or

ineffective, but simply that it was not generally recognized among qualified experts as having been

adequately shown to be safe and effective when used in the manner prescribed, recommended, or

suggested in its labeling.

A “general recognition” of a drug’s safety and effectiveness must be based on three

conditions. First, there must be substantial evidence of the drug’s effectiveness that would be

sufficient to obtain FDA’s approval for the drug. “Substantial evidence” is evidence consisting of

“adequate and well-controlled investigations,” including clinical investigations, upon which

qualified experts can fairly and reasonably conclude that it will have the effect it is represented to

have, such as to cure a disease.

Second, the “adequate and well-controlled investigations” must be published in the

scientific literature so that they are made generally available to the community of qualified experts

and are, thereby, subject to peer evaluation, criticism, and review. The published investigations

must be of the safety and efficacy of the complete drug, as opposed just to some of the ingredients

in the drug. The absence of literature establishing the safety and effectiveness of the drug is proof

that the requisite general recognition does not exist. Anecdotal and testimonial evidence from

doctors or patients regarding the safety and effectiveness of a new drug is not sufficient to meet

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 15 of 31

the standards of the FDCA with respect to establishing the drug’s safety and effectiveness. In

addition, general recognition of safety and effectiveness cannot be based on clinical impressions

of practicing physicians or patients, poorly controlled experiments, isolated case reports, random

experience, or reports lacking the details which permit scientific evaluation.

Third, there must be a consensus among qualified experts, based on adequate and well-

controlled published investigations of the drug, that the drug is safe and effective for each of its

labeled indications. If you find that any one of these three conditions fails to exist for the drug,

then the drug was not generally recognized as safe and effective and, therefore, was a “new drug.”

An “unapproved new drug” is a drug for which FDA has not approved a New Drug

Application, Abbreviated New Drug Application, or Investigational New Drug Application.

“Interstate commerce” means commerce between any State and any place outside thereof.

To act with “intent to defraud” means to act with the specific intent to deceive or cheat.

The Government does not have to prove that anyone was in fact defrauded.

To act with “intent to mislead” means to act with the specific intent to create a false

impression by misstating, omitting or concealing facts. It is not necessary, however, to prove that

anyone was, in fact, misled.

A Defendant can act with intent to defraud or to mislead either (1) the consumers of the

Defendant’s products or (2) the Government.

To act with the intent to defraud or mislead the consumers of a product means to act with

the specific intent to defraud or mislead either the direct purchaser of the product, or subsequent

purchasers or users, about the nature of the product being used or purchased or some significant

fact or aspect of the product being used or purchased.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 16 of 31

To act with the intent to defraud or mislead the Government means to act with the specific

intent to interfere with or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at

least by means that are dishonest.

I have instructed you about the elements of this substantive offense so that you can

understand what the Defendants allegedly conspired to do. Let me remind you that in Count 1 the

Defendants are not charged with committing the substantive offense of distributing an unapproved

new drug. Rather, they are charged with agreeing or conspiring to do so.

SOURCE:

United States v. Vanmoor, 06-60064-Cr-JAG (ECF67) (edited for case; “intent to defraud” and
“intent to mislead” definitions modified to confirm to language currently used in multiple Eleventh
Circuit pattern instructions, e.g., O14, O40.2); Boccuzzi, supra. See generally 21 U.S.C. §§ 321,
331, 355; 21 C.F.R. 314.126, 201.5,201.128.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 17 of 31

Count One: Object of the Conspiracy #3: Distributing a Misbranded Drug

The third object of the criminal conspiracy charged in Count One is that the Defendants

conspired to commit another offense, specifically, to violate another provision of the FDCA which

makes it a federal crime for anyone to cause the introduction or delivery for introduction into

interstate commerce of a misbranded drug. I will instruct you momentarily on two ways in which

a drug may be misbranded within the meaning of Title 21, United States Code, Section 352.

A Defendant can be found guilty of this crime only if all of the following facts are proved

beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) That the Defendant caused a drug to be introduced or delivered for introduction into
interstate commerce;

(2) That the drug was misbranded; and

(3) That the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud or mislead.

I have already defined the term “drug” and instructed you about the meaning of “interstate

commerce” and “to act with the intent to defraud or mislead.”

A product may be “misbranded,” as relevant here, in either of two ways.

One, a drug is misbranded if its labeling lacks adequate directions for use. “Adequate

directions for use” means directions sufficient to enable a lay person to use a drug safely and for

the purposes for which it is intended.

A second way that a drug can be misbranded is if it was manufactured, prepared,

propagated, compounded, or processed in an establishment not duly registered under the FDCA.

The FDCA requires that, during the period beginning on October 1 and ending on December 31

of each year, every person who owns or operates any establishment in any State engaged in the

manufacture, preparation, propagation, compounding, or processing of a drug or drugs shall

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 18 of 31

establishments, the unique facility identifier of each such establishment, and a point of contact e-

mail address.

Let me remind you again that in Count 1 the Defendants are not charged with committing

the substantive offense of distributing a misbranded drug. Rather, they are charged with agreeing

or conspiring to do so. I have instructed you about the elements of this substantive offense so that

you can understand what Defendants allegedly conspired to do.

SOURCE:

On “adequate directions for use,” see 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a); 333(a)(2); 352(f)(1); 21 CFR 201.5
and 201.128. See also United States v. Genesis II Church of Health & Healing, 476 F. Supp. 3d
1283, 1292 -93 (S.D. Fla. 2020) (Williams, J.) (“A drug is ‘misbranded’ under 21 U.S.C. §
352(f)(1) if its labeling fails to bear “adequate directions for use” and is not exempt from this
requirement. ‘[A]dequate directions for use’ are those ‘under which the layman can use a drug
safely and for the purposes for which it is intended.’ 21 C.F.R. § 201.5. ”). The Government may
seek additional language regarding prescription drugs, which cannot, by definition, have adequate
directions for use, see, e.g. 21 U.S.C. § 353(b)(1)(A); 21 C.F.R. §§ 201.5; 201.115; 201.100(c)(2);
Genesis II Church of Health & Healing, 476 F. Supp. 3d at 1293; United States v. Patwardhan,
422 F. App’x 614, 616 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Evers, 643 F.2d 1043, 1051 (5th Cir. 1981)
(accepting the FDA’s assertion that “since a prescription drug by definition can be used only under
a physician’s supervision ... it is impossible to provide ‘adequate directions for use’ to a layman”)
(citing United States v. Articles of Drug, 625 F.2d 665, 673–75 (5th Cir. 1980))).
On unregistered establishments, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 352(o), 360(b).
Additional language may be appropriate if the defendants assert that they were in one of the
categories in which a drug may be exempt from the “adequate directions for use” requirement, or
exempt from the registration requirement.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 19 of 31

Counts Two and Three: Contempt

It’s a Federal crime for anyone to willfully disobey or resist any order of any court 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) A court of the United States entered an order of reasonable specificity;

(2) the Defendant violated the order; and

(3) the violation was willful.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida is a court of the United

States.

A willful violation is a deliberate or intended violation, as distinguished from an accidental,

inadvertent, or negligent violation of an order.

If the Government proves the elements I just described, it is not a defense that the

Defendant believed in good faith that the order was unlawful, or that the order was in fact unlawful

in some way.

SOURCE:

18 U.S.C. §401(c); United States v. Burstyn, 878 F.2d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir. 1989); United States
v. Hendrickson, 822 F.3d 812, 821 (6th Cir. 2016) (collecting cases and explaining that the
collateral bar rule prohibits a defendant from defeating a criminal contempt charge by claiming
that the order was unlawful; also affirming district court’s instruction to that effect because
“[w]hile acting under an honest, although incorrect, misunderstanding of a court order is a defense
to criminal contempt, the fact that a person believes in good faith that the court order is unlawful
is not” (citations and internal punctuation omitted)).

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 20 of 31

B9.1A (modified)
On or About; Knowingly; Willfully – Generally

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 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.

I have given you a specific instruction about the word “willfully” in reference to the

contempt charges in Counts 2 and 3, and you should follow that instruction on deciding those

counts. As used elsewhere in these instructions, 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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 21 of 31

Persons or Charges Not on Trial

You may not draw any inference, favorable or unfavorable, toward the Government or

the Defendant on trial from the fact that any person in addition to the Defendants is not on trial

here. You may also not speculate as to the reasons why other persons are not on trial. Neither

may you speculate as to the reasons why certain Defendants are charged in some counts of the

Indictment but not others. Those matters are wholly outside your concern and have no bearing

on your function as jurors.

SOURCE:

Modified from similar instructions in multiple SDFL cases including United States v. Belfast, No.
06-20758-CR-Altonaga (DE580:3), aff’d, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir 2010) and United States v.
Esformes, 16-20549-Cr-Scola, aff’d, 60 F.4th 621 (11th Cir. 2023).

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 22 of 31

No Defense of “Justification”

The government must prove each of the elements of a charged offense beyond a reasonable

doubt, including those elements relating to the Defendant’s state of mind. But, if you find that the

Defendant had the state of mind necessary to commit the crimes charged in the indictment, then it

is not a defense that the Defendant believed that violating the law was religiously, politically, or

morally required, or that ultimate good would result.

SOURCE:
Similar no-justification instructions based upon this language have been given in multiple SDFL
cases later affirmed by the 11th Circuit including United States v. Khan, 11-20331-Cr-Scola
(DE747:16), United States v. Batiste, 06-20773-Cr-Lenard (DE1307:29); and United States v.
Padilla et al., 04-60001-Cr-Cooke (DE1189). See also Belfast, supra (Altonaga, J.)
(“[P]raiseworthy motives [] may prompt one person to voluntary acts of good while prompting
another person to voluntary acts of crime. Good motive alone is never a defense where the act
done or omitted is a crime. …). Adapted from Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal,
Special Instruction 9 (addressing a good faith defense to willfulness, but additionally including the
following language: “Intent and motive must not be confused. ‘Motive’ is what prompts a person
to act. It is why the person acts. ‘Intent’ refers to the state of mind with which the act is done. If
you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant specifically intended to do something that
is against the law and voluntarily committed the acts that make up the crime, then the element of
‘willfulness’ is satisfied, even if the Defendant believed that violating the law was [religiously,
politically, or morally] required or that ultimate good would result.” (brackets in original)).

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 23 of 31

First Amendment/Permissible Use of Evidence

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes certain rights which

benefit everyone. The First Amendment provides, in part, that Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the

freedom of speech. A person is free to believe any religion, or no religion, and express any point

of view. But the First Amendment does not protect the kind of criminal activity charged in this

case.

So, having instructed you concerning rights of each defendant pursuant to the First

Amendment, I also instruct you that the First Amendment is not a defense to the crimes charged

in this indictment. If the Government proves all of the elements of those crimes beyond a

reasonable doubt, you must return a verdict of guilty, regardless of whether the defendant’s

conduct had some connection to religious activity or to a claim of free speech. I instruct you as

well that, in deciding whether the Government has met its burden, you may consider the

defendants’ statements admitted as evidence during the trial, and give them whatever weight you

decide.

SOURCE:

Adapted from instruction approved in United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 127 (4th Cir.
2014) (reading in full: “I turn your attention now to the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which establishes certain rights which accrue to each defendant. The First
Amendment provides, in part, that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press
or the right of the people to be peaceably assembled. The right of freedom of speech and to engage
in peaceful assembly extends to one’s religion and one’s politics. Having instructed you
concerning rights of each defendant pursuant to the First Amendment, I also instruct you that the
First Amendment is not a defense to the crimes charged in the indictment.”). See generally United
States v. Annamalai, 939 F.3d 1216, 122-25 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that while the “First
Amendment prohibits a criminal charge of fraud from being based on ‘the truth or verity of [a

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 24 of 31

person’s] religious doctrines or beliefs,’ it ‘does not protect fraudulent activity performed in the
name of religion’”) (quoting, inter alia, United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 847 (9th Cir.
1981)); Emp. Div., Dep’t of Hum. Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879-82 (1990) (Free
Exercise Clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral
law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his
religion prescribes (or proscribes),” and rejecting idea that “when otherwise prohibitable conduct
is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be
free from governmental regulation”); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-06 (1940)
(noting that the First Amendment “embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to
act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject
to regulation for the protection of society … penal laws are available to punish [those who] under
the cloak of religion, ... commit frauds upon the public”); United States v. Friday, 525 F.3d 938
(10th Cir. 2008) (“Where an individual violates an otherwise valid criminal statute, the First
Amendment does not act as a shield to preclude the prosecution of that individual simply because
their criminal conduct has a connection to religious activity.”). On the use of defendants’
statements, see, e.g., Hassan, 742 F.3d at 127 (describing as “entirely consistent with the First
Amendment [making] evidentiary use of the appellants’ speech to establish the elements of their
crimes or to prove motive or intent. … Indeed, because the essence of a conspiracy is an agreement
to commit an unlawful act, the supporting evidence may necessarily include a defendant’s
speech.” (internal citations and punctuation omitted)); United States v. Amawi, 695 F.3d 457, 482
(6th Cir. 2012) (same); United States v. Hassoun, et al., 04-60001-Cr-Cooke (S.D. Fla. 2007),
DE1189 (advising jury that while “[f]reedom of religion protects an individual’s … right to
believe, profess, practice and preach whatever religious doctrine he ... may chose,” his statements
may be considered as evidence of criminal activity including state of mind).

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 25 of 31

B10.4
Caution: Punishment
(Multiple Defendants, Multiple Counts)

Each count of the indictment charges a separate crime against one or more of the

Defendants. You must consider each crime and the evidence relating to it separately. And you

must consider the case of each Defendant separately and individually. If you find a Defendant

guilty of one crime, that must not affect your verdict for any other crime or any other Defendant.

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

superseding indictment. You’re here to determine from the evidence in this case whether each

Defendant is guilty or not guilty of those specific crimes.

You must never consider punishment in any way to decide whether a Defendant is guilty.

If you find a Defendant guilty, the punishment is for the Judge alone to decide later.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 26 of 31

S5
Note-taking

You’ve been permitted to take notes during the trial. Most of you – perhaps all of you –

have taken advantage of that opportunity.

You must use your notes only as a memory aid during deliberations. You must not give

your notes priority over your independent recollection of the evidence. And you must not allow

yourself to be unduly influenced by the notes of other jurors.

I emphasize that notes are not entitled to any greater weight than your memories or

impressions about the testimony.

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 27 of 31

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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 28 of 31

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 form]

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 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 29 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-20241-Cr-Altonaga/Torres

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

MARK SCOTT GRENON,
JONATHAN DAVID GRENON,
JORDAN PAUL GRENON, and
JOSEPH TIMOTHY GRENON,

Defendants.
_________________________________/

VERDICT

WE THE JURY find unanimously as follows:

For DEFENDANT MARK SCOTT GRENON:

As to Count One of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

If guilty, please identify whether the Government proved the following objects:

To defraud the United States and its agencies:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing an unapproved new drug:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing a misbranded drug:

______ Yes ______ No

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 30 of 31

For DEFENDANT JONATHAN DAVID GRENON:

As to Count One of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

If guilty, please identify whether the Government proved the following objects:

To defraud the United States and its agencies:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing an unapproved new drug:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing a misbranded drug:

______ Yes ______ No

As to Count Two of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

As to Count Three of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

For DEFENDANT JORDAN PAUL GRENON:

As to Count One of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

If guilty, please identify whether the Government proved the following objects:

To defraud the United States and its agencies:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing an unapproved new drug:

______ Yes ______ No

Case 1:21-cr-20242-CMA Document 174 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 31 of 31

To commit the offense of distributing a misbranded drug:

______ Yes ______ No

As to Count Two of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

As to Count Three of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

For DEFENDANT JOSEPH TIMOTHY GRENON:

As to Count One of the Indictment: ______ Guilty ______ Not Guilty

If guilty, please identify whether the Government proved the following objects:

To defraud the United States and its agencies:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing an unapproved new drug:

______ Yes ______ No

To commit the offense of distributing a misbranded drug:

______ Yes ______ No

SO SAY WE ALL
Signed: __________________________
Foreperson

Dated: ____________, 2023

File and source

File: 174-b1cdb5f5.pdf
Size: 268,084 bytes
SHA-256: b1cdb5f59aeeef0ee3e2dd83d5d93e0bb0fac29e8384ef0b76f0352dd3c2f0a3
Our copy: 174-b1cdb5f5.pdf

Court’s Instructions to the Jury — United States v. Grenon (Dkt. 174, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Record facts

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records