Objections to Government Verdict Form — United States v. Henson (Dkt. 143, D. Md.)

Summary

The defendant's objections to the government's proposed verdict form in United States of America v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. MJM-21-470, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed June 17, 2024. The defense argues that the government's form, with only guilty or not guilty options, disregards the presumption of innocence and gives the jury no guidance on the elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge of bank fraud and false statements. It proposes a form that sets out those elements and acknowledges the jury's right to acquit if unsure. The defendant reserves the right to make further objections and to be heard on the verdict form.

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

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Coq fP1-cr-00470-MJM         Document 143 Filed 06/17/24 Pagelof3

Rev'd by:

         UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

                                                *

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                 :

                                                *
                   V.                           *       Criminal No. MJM-21-470

                                                *
       NICHELLE HENSON                          *

                                                *

                                                *

                                                *

    i i rr

                         Objections to Government Verdict Form

The defendant objects strenuously to the government's proposed verdict form. The

government's proposed verdict form is a glaring attempt to railroad this jury into a

conviction! It denies the defendant, the fundamental right to a fair trial.

This form, with its stark "guilty" or "not guilty" options, disregards the fundamental principle of

our justice system: the presumption of innocence.

This form is a blank check for the government. It offers the jury no guidance on the elements

the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt for each charge. Are they even sure what

those elements are? Shouldn't the jury be clear on what the government needs to show to

take away Nichelle Henson freedom?

The government's form is akin to a multiple-choice test with only one passing grade. It fails

to ensure the jury grasps the essential elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt for each charge: bank fraud and false statements. Without clear guidance on these

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document143_ Filed 06/17/24 Page2of3

elements, the jury is left to guess at the necessary standard, potentially convicting Nichelle

Henson based on misunderstanding or incomplete information.

This form also fails to ensure the jury's certainty. Where's the option for jurors who have
doubts? The government wants a quick "guilty" or "not guilty," not a thoughtful examination of

the evidence. Shouldn't jurors be absolutely sure before convicting someone?

Furthermore, the form lacks any mechanism to confirm the jury's certainty. A jury verdict
is amomentous decision, one that should not be rushed or taken lightly. The absence of a
"question of doubt" element deprives Nichelle Henson of a crucial safeguard. Jurors with
lingering doubts may be pressured to convict simply because there's no option to express their

hesitation.

This one-sided approach prioritizes speed and a conviction over a fair and just outcome. The

government's eagerness to secure a verdict at any cost is deeply concerning.

This is not about finding the truth; it's about a win for the government at all costs. The

defendant demands a fair and balanced verdict form!

Therefore, the defense proposes the attached verdict form that respects the jury's role. It
ensures they understand their responsibility and have the tools to deliver a just verdict.
Only with this level of clarity can the defendant have a fair trial. This revised form

includes:

1. Clear definitions of the elements the government must prove for each charge (bank
fraud and false statements).

2. Separate sections for each charge to avoid confusion.

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM Document143_ Filed 06/17/24 Page3of3

3. A"beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for each element, reminding jurors of the
high burden the prosecution bears.
4. A'not guilty due to reasonable doubt" option, acknowledging the jury's right to

acquit if unsure.

This form fosters a thorough understanding of the case and a well-considered verdict. It

levels the playing field, giving both the government and the defendant a fair chance.

The defendant moves to preserve her right to lodge further objections with respect to the

proposed verdict form. The defense reserves its right to be heard on the verdict form.

File and source

File

143.pdf

Size

882,087 bytes

SHA-256

bd892971b1d2a2221cae90249e1e26f8c70c1bff58b0abf0f560ebbf1389c9e2

Our copy

143.pdf