United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Larry Burstein, Defendant-appellant, 50 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 50 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1995)

Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 1995. Decided March 9, 1995

Before: FLETCHER, PREGERSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

* The district court's repeated and coercive Allen instructions were plain error under United States v. Seawell, 550 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1977), prejudiced Burstein, and hurt the integrity of the proceedings, justifying reversal under the plain error standard of United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770 (1993).


Under the circumstances, Burstein preserved his objection to the district court's misstatement of the Jewell instruction. We review de novo whether a jury instruction misstates the elements of a crime, and examine whether the jury instructions overall are misleading or inadequate to guide the jury's deliberations. United States v. Blinder, 10 F.3d 1468, 1477 (9th Cir. 1993). By several times omitting the word "not" from the last paragraph of the Jewell instruction, the district court failed to give the jury adequate guidance, entitling Burstein to a new trial. This was not cured by one interspersed statement that was not incorrect.



* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.