Appendix: Two Mail Fraud
Federal Judicial Center, Pattern Criminal JuryInstructions
The defendant, _________________, is accused of [e.g.: planning to get money by
giving false information to Sarah Stone and Rubin Ross] and using the mail in con-
nection with this plan. It is against federal law to cheat someone if the mail is used.
For you to find _________________ guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that
the government has proved each of these things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that _________________ made a plan [e.g.: to
eyewitness’s judgment of distance?
(Review relevant evidence and relate to the issues.)
2. The circumstances in which the witness made his/her observations
Had the witness seen the person on a previous occasion?
Canadian Judicial Council, National
Judicial Institute: Eyewitness Identification
Evidence, Model JuryInstructions
Did the witness know the person before s/he saw him/her at the time?
How long did the witness watch the person s/he says is the person on trial?
How good or bad was the visibility?
Was there anything that prevented or
against the conventional
wisdom which assumes commensurability between linguistic expression and numerical
KEYWORDS: juryinstructions, standard of proof, sure, beyond reasonable doubt, confidence
Author Notes: My sincere thanks to Roger Leng for casting an acute legal eye over this work and
to Craig Callen for his patient and invaluable editing.
The standard for proof of guilt in criminal cases is a matter of paramount
importance to the fair and effective operation of the criminal justice system – all
the more so at a time when there
-free strategy for the suspect/defendant in
the English legal system. Unlike in the US, where criminal juries are in-
structed that they may not draw any inferences from such a decision,1
recent changes in the UK mean that English juries are now instructed that
they may draw ‘appropriate inferences’ from the defendant’s failure to
speak. This paper draws on a corpus of oral juryinstructions taken from
English criminal trials where the defendant chose to invoke the right to
silence at interview and/or during the subsequent trial. It analyses the com-
Soon after this decision a dispute started between scholars and Courts on whether the “reason-
able doubt standard” ought to be defined by juryinstructions or could be considered a matter of
the jurors’ “original understanding,” that is a “self-evident” concept. Depending on the solution of
the dispute, failing to define the standard through suitable instruction could amount to a reversible
constitutional error (i.e. a constitutional error that imposes reversal).
In 2006 the highly discussed law n.46 introduced the standard of “proof beyond a reasonable
chapter 1. Laws and Judges 1
chapter 2. Why We Need to Interpret Statutes 16
chapter 3. Definitions, Ordinary Meaning, and Respect for the
chapter 4. The Intent of the Legislature 82
chapter 5. Stability, Dynamism, and Other Values 120
chapter 6. Who Should Interpret Statutes? 160
chapter 7. Jurors as Statutory Interpreters 196
chapter 8. Legislatures, Judges, and Statutory Interpretation 223
appendix. Two Mail Fraud JuryInstructions 231
List of Cases 283
? Why do we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and continue to give juryinstructions contrary to the overwhelming consensus that witness demeanor is not a basis to determine the accuracy or truthfulness of their testimony? Many years ago, co-author Jeannine Turgeon attended United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s lecture “Trial by Jury–In Need of Repair” at The Chautauqua Institute. Justice O’Connor criticized various aspects of our current jury system and offered suggestions for its improvement. She opined that “[j]ust because something
necessary and that the traditional
trial safeguards of cross-examination, counsel submissions and juryinstructions
adequately inform juries as to the problems with eyewitness identification. What I do
propose is that the expert studies on memory and eyewitness identification be used
to improve our identification gathering practices – outside of the courtroom.
What Do The Experts Have To Offer?
A fundamental prerequisite to the admissibility of any evidence is that it must
be relevant. With respect to expert testimony on eyewitness identification the
evidence is being
C Federal/Provincial/Territorial Heads of Prosecution Committee Working
Group (2005), Recommendations regarding the Use of Eyewitness
Identification Evidence 316
D Canadian Judicial Council, National Judicial Institute: Eyewitness
Identification Evidence, Model JuryInstructions 318
E Canada’s 1988 Federal-Provincial Guidelines on Compensation for
Wrongfully Convicted and Imprisoned Persons 321
Legislation and Case Citations 381