Legal Research on Rule 30

    ry-*"'a

'.s 
o; Cnttrilxel PRoce'oune

.#rry':t:ir:i.fi,.J,i;x*ili
.d vcrdict of Suilty, in liSl

';;;-dictirmine 
whcthcr there war

;;':H;; ft"t which jurY could rcason'

i:fd#fr i,;TBil"JtiIl:'i&"J:['l: ;:i';ili;t''unitcd Statca v Brandon

' ias Wssh) 6tl F2d 171'
',."";;;;;i'i of 'orion 

for.judgmcnt of

rl$j6qd*'**,*,I-ry*
"".i!-*rt"n 

l.;ufficicnt !o support convtctron

,"il, Ut.o,, and such.conviction Tay 'uc

** uiL"Ln:nr;'.#'l;'*,!:rj ff ,

[**fififfi.ffi
ffi5il;H!,'ffi
;1*k[:.ffi."1x'"1&o# # iffi'ffH'ir,"i,'#11'"r;;ig"9:1.'Ilht":il''j'1j"Jli:fl
,ch evidence Provides lurY I

find defendant guilty ucyond rcasonablc'doubt'

,i:t il.ii,s.icstimonY ror 
i':3"f J:ffi':i

il'#J#jtflJ#-"H#fffltu*

GUIDE

, arcumcnt to jury indicating his bclicf or

It -hl-R Fea tO'

;;'fr;', o,t;s.iurv imprdsion that judgc

,nT'u1l"?[l[J;,"[gi$t"'[:},i,.nff

rr's argumc[t giving jury imprcssion that

R3d 263.

,r Criminal Trials'
Law.
d).

ES AND DECISIONS 
,

Fairness will dictatc-thii 
r;;X1",":;"S"Tfi-

which Prosccutor uscs ln

ff:.t*ffi ;i.;4'l;iltift.'"',|ffi
".l 

"15"Jt[:::lli 
H! il]'^ii ji i? i ir z

iial luag. did not.abuseo"n,,*f:?;r.ti".t#
refusing cautionary-,-tns"",;;:.;; by way o{
counscl rcfuscd court's oI

turrcbuttal summation aftcr counscl had sufficicnt Rulc 29.1 docs not rupcncdc Local Rulc whlch
timc to confcr and rcvicw trial tranrcript and is not inconsistcnt or incompatiblc with Rulc 29.1
erhibitc forming basis of Govcrnment'r comPuta' in opociffc circumstancc wherc dcfandant prctcntt

lff*:."*'l*%,*cre,?ff,":0,'Is,H[,H:'U",l$ no ividcncc. unitcd ststc3 v Fcrrctti,(l.elq.cA3

ilE; cr""'o'iigze, cAi Ni5'or?'Fib zI'--- Pa) 635 Fzl l08e' 
.,;. .rr

WKIVEK K trl,t 3O
Rule 30Tnrnl

Rule 30.. Instructlonr

R,ESEARCH GUIDE

FcderdProccdurclEd: '." I

Fcd Proc, L Ed $0 22:830,22:833,22:834,22:E36,22:842-22:84{,22286/0,22:1206,22t1262, ; ' '
22:1280,22:l!18,33:32,33:l@,33:122. ' i

Aonotrdonr: '' ' :'"
Court's duty to inform counscl of proposcd action on rcqucstcd instructions undcr Rulc a0 , ' -

of Fcdcral Rulcs of Criminal Proccdure. 40 ALR Fd 495

Propricty and prcjudicial cffcct of scnding writtcn instructions with rctiring jury in criminal . 
"i', ' '

csse'. el ALR3d i82. ,.;.1 '' 1,,;i
Tertr:
Bailcy and Rothblatt, Succcssful Tcchniqucs for Criminal Trials. " ' '

Cook, Constitutiond Nghts of thc Accuscd: Trial Rights. 't
Orfeld, Criminal Procedurc Undcr thc Fcdcral Rulcs. .

Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Proccdure (l2th d)' 
:

INTERPRETIVE NOTES AND DECISIONS
77.5. Hcaring on objcction

l. Gcncrdly
Burdcn of living propcr instruction is on judgc'

and rcviewing court lools to words of trial court'
not thosc ofdcfcnsc counscl, in dctcrmining ifjury
instructionc arc adcquatc. Unitcd Statca v Wolfson
(197t, CAi Fla) 573 Hld 2t6.

Yalid chargc may bc framcd without strict
obacrvancc ol Rulc 30, and undcr lomc circum'
rtanccr failure to obccrvc rulc cannot bc viewed in
rnd of itrclf a8 error of such magritudc as to
wtrrint rcvenal, Unitcd Stata v Gallagher (1978'
CA3 NY) 576 F2d 102E, latcr app (CA3 NI) 602
F:ld 1139, ccrt dismd ,144 US 1030, 62 L U 2d
67t, too S Ct 713 and latcr app (CA3 NI) 602
Eld 1143.

1 Purpoc
Purpoac of Rulc 30 in rcquiring court to inform

counrcl of ite proposed action on requcstcd in'
rtruction ir to cnablc counscl to arguc intclligcntly
rnd court may inform counscl in gcncral tcrms
$itible to this purpoac, and nccd not do eo in
tcot nc!-by-scntencc outlinc. Martin v Unitcd
srrt!3 (196E, CAlo wyo) 4o/.Fzd ffi.

Primary purpGc of jury instructions ir to dcflne
rith subeantial particularity factual irgu6'- and.
c.blrty to instruci jurore as to principlcr of law
rhich thcy rrc to apply in dcciding factual is8ueg

hvolvcd in casc; accordingly, dcfcndant is cntitlcd
r chargc which prcciscly and spccifically, rather
lf.n mcrcly gcntrally or abstractly, points to
rhory of his dcfense. Unilcd Statcs v rtolfson
(19t, CAi Fla) 573 Fzd 216.
: Objcct of Rulc 30 is to afford adcquatc oppor!!'
t, lor trial judgc to corrcct mistakcs in his
lrgc and for opposing party to keep rccord clcEr
Ccrror, Unitcd Siatcs v Parioicn (1978, CA8 ND)
,. F2d 974,
: hrporc of Rulc 30 is to rcquirc judgc to inform
ril liwycn in fair way what chargc ir going to bc
r tirt thcy may intclligcntly arguc casc to jury.
lllal Stata v Wandcr (1979, CA3 Pa) 601 F2d
nr;

Purposc of limiting assignmcnts of crror. to
thosc portions of court's charSe to which objcc'
tions hivc bccn made and grounds thcrcforc strtcd
is to providc trial court opportunity to corrcct stly
crror or admission in chargc bcforc jury bcginc its
delibcrations, so that if promPt objcction is madc'
crror can thcn bc corrcctcd; Purposc of pcrmitting
partica to object to court's chargc out of prc*nco
of jury is to pcrmit full argumcnt of objcction! to
inaiructionc; it is al6o dcsigrrcd to avoid. gubilc

psychotogicrl presurel upon juron which would
arisc il they wcrc to vicw and hcar dcfcnrc counscl

in posturc of spparent antagonism toward judSc;

cvcn low toncd bcnch confcrcnccs run countcr to
Rulc 30's DurDosc bccausc such confcrcnccr mry
rcsult in t-n&t"a considcration of partio' objcc'
tions, thereby limiting trial judge's opportunity. to
pcrccivc crror and corrcct it prior to s-ub-mitting
igsc to jury. Unitcd St8tcs v Salinag (1979' .CA5
Tcx) 60i Fzd l2tg, amd on othcr grouds (CA5
Tcx) 510 Fzd250.

Obvious purposc of Rulc 30 rcquircmcnt that
Darty objcct, if hc wishcs to assign 8s cror sny

io.tion 6f ci,arge or omission thercfrom, and thrt
Le etatc mattcrs to which he objccts and groundr
for hic objcctions, is to inform trial- judge of
poscible criors, afordinS opportunity for corrcc'
iion. Unitcd Statcc v Robinson (1979, CA6 Tcon)
@2FZd760.

3. Relrtlonrhlp rlth other lrw
Defcndant

tEz Fzd 942.
Whcre thcrc has bccn no timcly objcction to

185

7L thL



Rule 30 RuI-E's or CRlt"ttxel PRocBDURE

UnitcdStatcsvAndcrson(l98o,cA8Ark)626..Defensccounsel'sobjectiontocourt'sfailurcto
F2d t358. i#;;-it;k;J-spccinlitv 'rcouircd 

bv Rule 30

Appcllatc court will considcr trial court's j.ury *i.t.l'i"t"tp"ntJio toun't request for objcction

instructions undcr plarn *.il"l"r.'ii.iJ;ilililt to'irir'.tt"tgi' defcnse counsel stated' "Except as

fails at trial to comply *iti' p'*J'i'i '"'na"t.. 
p;t;;il; tA'it"a t1' mv writtcn requcst [P8rt of

of Rulc 30 for objcctio";:1;;:;'i;J;;''idt fiil ffi c-Jurt inadverttntlv failcd to givcl' thc

Unit; suto v Far-bcr ('efi, A"ii'ilJlibd.iil- ffi[:H'trJ:"f:1"*;lU:'.:lt,:iH:"Lf:1i[
t69.

Dcrcndant's ralure to object to,.triar i9-g*i"1 :l*" -l""ffffiX"ltt$:;'jff'lill'-ff"ttflinstructions on accomplicc liabilitv amounr to Si.itiiiZ-ti, beO ftfi.tt 588 F2d llSl'
ffi;;;;-r;;J-oujcctiori' unitcd statcs v Palumbo I

iisrii, ce, pa) 639 F2d 123. t3. Gcnerdlv

If no objcctions to instr;-ction given wcrc made --b;;'itti"; 
will 

-not -bc 
rcverscd bccausc of

by appcllanrs at trial, nJr-.Jia "thiy thcmsclrcs 
"oii:.'"ioi"iion 

of nul. 30 in dcnying dcfcndants'

ffi r**q,ilHfigfi{i",li{il,.ffi li$"$*.rs;p;;g;igigigg,q1
7?.-wr,ver 

" ---' ^ il*,gr';*ltl,l"xrur;:'ar'T:5tif;ri
t Under Rulc 30 failurc to objcct to jury^instruc- 

25O.
I ri^i"irira obicction. Unitcd Strtca v Swanson

I iiiie, 6il <ili-iii iza szt. E6' scope; 3enerrrrv

--TEIAiffii-E]ro did noi oUjcct to instruc-tion 
--itilotr;t 

of instruction docs not' aftcr subsc'

, *h?t-'il;;.i"ra, ,r,in[ i,it""""r-p-t""i "t qr*i'iiiiiir-or-i"itruttion' nT:ffi,tli,"r:,[l
I ;iffi';;;J"i*t tr'"i u*acn of proof itqry'nd ippeal undcr rcvcrsible cr

1'ldlr$ll-*;tr,::im$,'t"1"'luillTlit*x'm:'""1ff ;""'"4;li'1'}1f ilt
lii#d:'6i;'i:"iiioinzJ'ioo, '"'t 

a'n 444 us rosr'

Lia,;z LEdzd ioz, tmsct 165' 
E8. Miscarrtage of justice, plain error, or preJu'*TAfr* 

to oUjcct to jury instructions at timc of

trial constitutcs *'"i"", of'offiit'ti'-iit,tJ-stt; dice; generallv

v Sorenson (re7e, cA8 r'i#,ii?ii'izi ?or' 
-- 

-*','*l.ll',t*,i",,'l; [lll? #ii1'J#ti"*,,!i
couns"t ior appcllants waive any objcctign .to #ffi""ililt-,,"s *itt oity inlignificant wording

i"tilr.iio" *it"tJ'"t-"tot" of jury c-hargc' Distri:: ;ir;;.; i;",n instirctions riqucstcdlv 91f:",*11
ci".t-i""ito counscl to advis€ it of any crrors or ;;;iiilr;" of court to 3u8 spontc instruct on lcsscr

#;;;'il instructions givcn and.counscl docs i;If,ii;'-"iitltl-is plain crror under Rulc 52O)
iot;;ld;; court's fail-ure to givc re4-tq!q Uiilir*s,"ii'i:r,o"l s*t (1e78, cAe Mont) 57e

;;;;il-;' infory9n1- -ins1ry9tlo11', ,lltitca Fzd 522.

Tntel ','t 
" ;;

CA6 Ohio) 584 F2d 759, ccrt dcn
Lil2d 39r,99 S Ct 2030.

It cannot bc said with assur.nc(
court to instruct sua spontc thr'
dcfcndant's prior convictions was (i

sid*cd for a limitcd purpoac of e

dant's crcdibility did not influencc-i,
vcry slight cfiect on jury'r delibcra'
viction must bc sct asidc cvcn t

counscl failcd to rcqu.st such limr'
and failcd to objcct to omirsion t

rcquired by Rulc 30. Unitod Stetcs
CA5 Fla) r85 Fzd l16.

Appcllatc court crn considcr tria,
tion as plain crror only whcrc dcfr
objcct to instruction. Unitcd St,
(1978, CA6 Tcnn) 587 F:ld E4l.

Appcllarc court'g rcvicw ic limit
thosc dcfccls in inrtructionc to bas'
cial ag to constitutc plain crror wh
trial attorncy ncithcr tcndercd an)
tions nor objcctcd to thodc otrcrcd t

Unitcd Strtcs v Mavrick (1979, CA
921. '1'',r; '-'I. '.l

Dcfcndant ic prccluded fipm tss,
lcngc on appcal undcr Rulo 30 wh,
failcd to makc timcly objection to '
tions unlcss court 6nds plain crror. t

Hcrring (1979, CAi Ga) 602 F2d
(CA5 Ga) 606 Eld 321 and ccrt dc;
62LFd2d732,t@ SCt734. '

If dcfcndans do not objcct to
jury instruction at trial, it cannot b(
appeal unless instruction constitul,
Unitcd Statca v Glickmen (1979,
H2d 625.

Failure to objcct at timc charge '

rcsults in plain crror standard of
Stat6 v Thomann (1979, CAI NH)

Failurc to givc rcqucstcd ingtructr'
crror whcrc dcfcndant's objection t
timely and msttcr and grounds
statcd. Pcople of Tcrritory of Gl
(1979, CA9 Guam) 525 FAt 8ll.

On appcs.l, court mwt look !

crron@us instruction and scarch in:
crror" wherc defcndant challcnges
chargc given jury in scvcral rerpct
rcquGt instruction or object to ins:
as rcquircd by Rulc 30. Unitod Sta
(1981, CA, Tcx) 645 F2l 4t3.

90. Error rfiecdng dcferdelt'r rubo'
' C.ourt'c failure to advirc.counst

Rule 31. Verdlct. " '
:. .,1, .', i ;, I tt,') !'"

., . f.a.."t Procrsdure L Ed:
Fcd Proc, L Ed 0$ 22:4t6, 2.

j Auotadotrr! ]" '' Vdiditv and cfficacy of accur
'-t .:,, .

Tcrtr:
. , ." . Bailcy and Rothblatt, Succcs

Coolr, Constitutional Righto ,

, Orficld, Crimind Procadurc

,',' Torcia, Wharton'r Criminal

. Pcrlcinc, Dcaling ll,itb thc l

3ti*''" i".t* (1980, CAl. Mass) 619 F2d 108' ' -irf""a"rt 
has absolutc righl to. frayc .iu, in;

;i il;,ilG i,'v tt.t.'l .*iqll..1'9^.d:i:?,9::

nppcttant ' contcntion that District Court erred .,riJt.ai"f.fi-on cttatges coritained in indictmcnt'

ll-tyif g''s:::* n'S:X:l[TiJH'ff; '""ii'i'T'rii'gr' 
li,^og *1,,:SiT'i*'it.lffi#li;ffiffi"ii uo:"ur" of abscncc of objection to il;';;ii""Jtfiion as required bv Rulc 30' thati

charsc and failure to show that it was plarn-crror' -ij'. iJ.oAin.d by Rule 52(b)' p€rmittrnq.no-tlll
U;,4 il;--v-Ariza'lbarra (te8l' CAI Pucrto ii'illi"'.iriiit-aliirough not'brought.to."ltti11l
Rico) 651 F2d 2. oi lou.q where trial court committed,ptll-T:1

',1

I
I,J

II;
t-
I
I.
4,.
Ir.
-r i:
$itr.)-i'ti
tr
[:Ti.
Bir

$ii
Irr I

Appclant f"il, to .ho* prcjudicc yl.t".I9l.-:f q";il; t?"i """n 
will bc rcvcncd only if giving

sDDcllant's inst,,cttons *Jt"'refuscd in thcir cn' ;ililii'i;;- instruction constitutcs plain' crror;

;#fi'ili ii*[i"i'"atitt that hc cannot -now ii,,"L"i"'o?a"i to bc found to havc withdrawn

ii..iiiri*i'ilti -ctions that wcrc clcarlv -objec- iroi'contpira"Y, dcfcndant,mus.t 11"I":1,11-":,:"
tionabrc. unitca statcs'v rdo-" (rsso, cA,z rfii :if;:t*rx"ff5;ttr'.$:$ :lT,.lxxUl"?
6t1frld611. posc of conspiracy, where defcndant showed-onlY

t2. prrdculrr obJectlonr or conduct ii';; i; ;;a iorc"i by feltow conspirators pertorm

objcction to manncr in which court-discusscs ::hil ffi il't3tlF'* of 6onspiracv' trial

f:*#ittudir*l,e-11ffi fl 
*,l{il*ini$tff r 

jrTtilria'ffi

.i- goi.-..nt'c cvidcncc without revtewrng oc' illiitriiii trgle, Cei Fh) 582 Fzd lOZ2' ccrt dcn

L nti:*m"t#'":l*ilj;$i"'tH.:ffiif,.fl ;i,til':::.:d"i.tl':;':,i"i,'looi1,"" , '

l) 30 as to othcr.grounds. 'in::,i1.-dT,n::^::i:: ""X*nj::::i:,?#iJl.lir"ffl]r"rt.lffil''i;

77.5. Herrtry on obJecdon oI lnsrrucurru Jsrr r.e!- 't 
i-r"uirrc not include<

;;i;;" to-hold instruction objcction confercncc guilty of conspiracy to 
'^'oI]

is not rcvcrsiblc error unf".. pi.iuai". is shown' i,i'-ttunt of indiitment .with resDect to whicl

i,ift J;;;'tJi," t ii"dtl?T"iiil?ji :;;;x.;"r*d"**'lg;"llt ;;ll:ti"d
570' 5E2 F2dg42'
7g. Generrl objectlon; fellure to rtrte groundr - -lVhcn 

instruction is ncither challengcd.nor rc'.

^ ,-rt^-. r^:r- l^.|.^d -reirrdie whcrc nonc of -..'-;:;'J.i ^^.d will bc revcned only iI gtvtng

30 as to othcr grou-nds., sincc tt docs nor Etatc 
ry Ruli 30, rcvicwing

mattcr to which dcfcndant"ilit"o-iia.}io;Fi instruction' as contcmplatcd t

thcrcforc. Unitcd Statcs r H:?;;;iB?"d-6Ai .-'|-[l;i limit coniidcration to Dlain crror 8t

Mass) 586 F2d 860. dffi:iil R;il'iz-.-unitco statcs v smith (1e78':

170



Es oF Cnirtilxer. PRocr,Pune

:nsc coungcl'r objcction to court's failurc to
't lackcd spccificity rcquircd by Rulc 30

in rcsponse to courl's rcqucst for objection
;hargi, dcfcnse counscl statcd' "Ercept as-

usly rcqucated in my writtcn rcqucst [part of
ttrc coirrt inadvcrtcntly failcd to givcl, thc

biections to thc charSe will bc that I bclicvc
hnition of reasonablc doubt-I'm also cnti-
) an instruction that rcasonsble doubt may
)ut of a lack of evidencc." United Statcs v
(1978, CA6 Mich) 5tt F2d ll5l.
nerdly
,viction will not bc rcvcrscd bccausc of
i violation of Rulc 30 in dcnying dcfcndants'
ed and spcciflc rcqucatc to procnt objcctions
urt'o chirge to jury outsidc hearing. and
,cc ofjury, where record afrords no basis for
,rnclucion that prcjudicc infcctcd guilty ver'

'y rcason of non-compliance with Rule 30,

,i Steta v Salinar (1980, CAt Tcx) 610 F2d

onei gcncrdly
,c offcr of instruction doc3 not, aftcr gubsc'

refusel of instruction, pracrvc crror for
I undcr rcveniblc error itandard, although
mav bc aoocalcd undcr plain crror ctrndard.

'a Siatcs , hountain (1981, CA7 lll) 642 F2d

tiscrrrlrgc of Jurdce, plrln error, or prqJu'

generdly
rther faiturc to givc requcstcd instruction on
ss idcntiflcation, nor giving of instructions on

* and abctting with only insignificant wording
ces from instructions requ6tcd by defcndant'
rilure of court to oua spontc instruct on lcsscr

ded ofiensc is plain crror under Rulc 52(b)-
:d States v Lont Bcar (1978' CA9 Mont) 579

522.
'fendant has sbsolutc right to havc jury in-
ted solely on chargcs containcd in indictmcnt'
althourh hc docs not seasonably object to
oper in-struction as rcquired by Rule 30, that
ii modifled by Rulc 52(b), pcrmilting noticc
'ain crrors altirough not brought to attcntion
,un: whcrc trisl court committed plain error
rstructing jury that if might find dcfendant
y of conlpiraiy to violatc elatute not includcd
ount of indictmcnt with respcct to which
rdant was found guilty, conviction will bc

sed. United State Y Carroll (1978, CAS Tex)
Fad 942.
hcn instruction is neithcr challcngcd nor re'
ted, trial court will bc rcvcncd only if giving
,rmitting instruction constitutd plain- error;
':, in oidcr to bc found to havc withdrawn
r conspiracy, dcfcndant must show that hc or
acted afirmrtivcly to dcfeat or disavow pur-

of conspiracy, whcre defcndant showcd only
hc was iorccd by fellow conspirators perforyl
rin acts in furthcrancc of conspiracy, trial
t's failure to instruct jury sua sponte on
,drawal from conspiracy ncithcr affccted defcn-

r'e subotantlal righto nor deprivcd him of fair
t, and was not plain crror. Unitcd Statcs v
rtland (1978, CAi Fl8) 5E2 F2d 1022, ccrt dcn

Us I 133, 59 L Ed 2d 96,99 S Ct 1056.

,'hcrc thcre har bcen no timcly objcction to
ruction, as contcmplatcd by Rulc 30, rcvicwing
rt mutt limit considcration to plsin error as

ncd in Rule J2. Unitcd Statcs v Smith (197E'

TnInI-

CA6 Ohio) 584 F2d 759, ccrt dcn 4{l US 922' 60

L U 2d 395, 99 S Cr 2030.

It cannot bc said with assurancc that failurc of
court to instruct sua spontc that cvidcnct of
dcfcndant's prior convictions was only to bc. con'
sidcrcd for i limitea purposc of asscssing dcfcn'
dant'g crcdibility did not influcncc jury, or had but
vcry slight.cffcct on jury's delibcrations, and con'
viciion -mrist bc sci asidc cvcn though dcfcnsc

counscl failcd to rcquat such limiting instruction
and faitcd to objecr to omission from char.gc 1g
rcquircd by Ruli 30. Unitcd Statcs v Diaz (1978,

CA5 Fla) 585 F2d ll5.
, Aoocllatc court can considcr trisl court instruc'
I rion'is olain crror onlv wherc dcfcndant did not
I obicct to instruction. 

- 
Unitcd Statcs v Ashlcy

\ trize, CA6 Tcnn) 587 F2d 841.

-Aoocttate 
court'g rcvicw is limitcd, 8t bdt, to

thosi:'dcfccts in instructions to basic and prcjudi'
cial as to conctitutc plain crror whcrc dcfcndant'c
trial attorncy neithci tcndcred any auch instruc'
tions nor objcctcd to thooc ofcr{ by 

-8..o.lc-T-m!It:
Unitod Sttis v Mavriclt (1979' CA7 tll) 60l Eld
921.

Dcfcndant ic prccludcd from asscrting. hie chal'
lcngc on appcal'undcr Rulc 30 whcrc hig counscl

faiica to makc timcly objcction to court's instruc'
tions unl6s court finds plain crror. Unitcd Statcs v

Hcrrinc (1979, CAS Ga) 602 F2d 1220, rch dcn
(cns 6a) eos rza gzt an6 sc6 6ctf 444 US 1046,

62 L U 2d 732, l@ S Ct 734.

If defcndants do not objcct to supplcmcntary
jury instruction at trial, it cannot bc challangcd on

ipical unlcss instruction constituto p]aT 
-gqo-r:

ti,iit.a St"te v Glickman (1979' CA9 C8l) 5O0

F2d 625.
Failurc to objcct at timc charge to jury ic givcn

results in olain crror standard of rcvicw. Unitcd
Statcs v Thbmann (1979, CAI NH) 609 F2d 5@'

Failurc to givc rcqucstcd instruction is rcversible
crror whcrc dcfcndant's objcction to instruction is

timcly and mattcr and ground arc adluatcly
statd. Pcoplc of Territory of Guam v Rosario
(1979, CA9 Guam) 625 F2d Ell.

On appcal, court must look bcyond a-lleged

crroncoui instruction and scarch instcad for "plain
crror" whcrc dcfcn&nt challengcs sufficicncy of
chargc givcn jury in several rcspccts and fails to
rcqult'instruction or object to instructiols givcn
as rcquircd by Rulc 30. Unitcd Statcs v Varkonyi
(1981; car rcx) 645 F2d 453.

90. E t";G.g dcfendelt'r sub.tufi rlghtt
C-ourt'c failurc to advisc counscl that. instruc'

Rule 31. Verdlct.

Rulo 31

tions would not includc portion of rcquetcd in'
struction is dcpsrturc from gtrict tcrms of Rulc 30,

but docs not ;cquirc ncw trial sincc omission did
not gcncratc sucL fundamcntal prcjudicc to- qcfcn'
danias to constitutc rcvcrsiblc crror. Unitcd Sratq
v Hartman (1969' CA3 NI) 409 F2d t9t.

Givins of limiting instruction 8s ccpnt chrrge
docs noi constitute rcvcrsiblc error undcr Rulc 30

cven though dcfcndant w8s not givar ryccific
advancc noticc that instruction would bc givcn,

and allcgcdly did not havc adequatc oPportunity
to study-proposed instruction to formulstc Profr
obicction. sincc counscl w8s twicr alcrtcd that
initruction could likcly bc givcn. Unitcd Stata v

' Dawson (1972, CA8 Mo) 467 F2d 668' ccrt. dcn,

4ro us ei6, 35 L Ed 2d 68e, e3 S ct l12J;, ",;;i
92. Fdlurc to requect u brr " 

:

Abacncc of instruction limiting jury'r conridcra;
tion of vidcotapc prcscntcd in cvidcncc shicb
containcd cvidcncc of othcr crimcg wu not im'
oroocr whcrc dcfcnac did not lcc 0t to cdl for
iucir instruction at trial and thcrc w.t no brtit fot
holdinc that court wa8 plainly in cffor ln frilin3 to
civc a--uch instruction.- Unitcd Ststa, v. Childt
[tgzg) g+ App DC 250, 59E F2d 169. '' : "', '

Failurc to makc timcly rcquat for jury inrtruc'.
tion at trial prccludcs considcration of claim 

-by
court on app&t. Unitca Statcs v.Mcncndcz (19!!,
cA2 NY) 6r2FZd 51, : .. ,

In light of requirements of Rulc 30' failurc to
olacc ii record specific objcction to allcgcd omir'
sion orectude rcvicw of District Caurt's rcfusal to
includc proposcd instructions abscnt detcrmin8tion
that omissions constitutc plain crror. Unitcd Stdca
v Watson (1980, CA7 IU) 623 F2d ll9E.' :: ; r' '

95. Burden of proof " 'i 
i; : oi

Oncc trial judgc dctcrmincs that issuc of cntrap
mcnt crisB, burdcn is on proeccution to Provc
bcvond rearcnable doubt that dcfcndant was not

cnirappcd and instructions must clcarly. s!lFj9:
United'Statcs v Tom (1981, CA9 Haqsii) 640 F.24

96. New hdel
Yariancc in actual instruction from proposcd

instruction will not requirc granting of new trial
unlcss upon cxamination of charge in its cntircty. it
is dctermincd thst lhcrc was fundamcntal prcju'

dicc to dcfcndant; in thosc circumstanccs whcrc
gubstantial compliancc with Rulc 30 is lacLing,

new trial will bc ordcrcd. Unitcd Stst+ y Wandcr
(197P, CA3 Pa) 601 F2<t l25l' ; '',5,. , : , ,, ,,

RESEARCH GUIDE

Fcderd Proccdure L Ed:
Fcd Proc, L Ed SS 22i86,22:781,222E22,22:84122$51' ''
Auotrtlonr! :

validity and cfficacy of accugcd's waivcr of unanimous vcrdict. 97 ALR3d 1253.,,

Tcrtr:
.,,,r. 'r. Ii/ . ij..tlBailcy and Rothblatt, Succcssful Tcchniqua for Criminal Trialr'

Cook, Constitutional Righta of thc Accuscd: Trial Rightr' ' '

Orflcld, Criminal ProcJure Undcr the Fcdcral Rula'
Torcia, Wharton'g Criminal Proccdurc (12th ed).

.l

kr Rcvler Ardcler:
Pcrkins, Dcaling With thc tnconsigtcnt Vcrdict. tJ Criminal L Bulletin 405, 1979'