Buffis Trial: Proposed Jury Instructions (Government)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
JOSEPH BUFFIS,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 13-CR-30028-MGM
GOVERNMENTS PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

The United States of America, by Carmen M. Ortiz, United States Attorney for the
District of Massachusetts, hereby submits its proposed final jury instructions, in the abovecaptioned case, pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The
Government respectfully reserves the right to supplement, modify, or withdraw these instructions
in light of the defendant=s jury instructions, rulings on motions in limine, or developments at
trial.
Respectfully submitted,
CARMEN M. ORTIZ
United States Attorney
/s/ Steven H. Breslow
STEVEN H. BRESLOW (NY2915247)
DEEPIKA B. SHUKLA (NY4584009, CT29229)
Assistant United States Attorneys
300 State Street, Suite 230
Springfield, MA 01105
413-785-0237
deepika.shukla@usdoj.gov
Certificate of Service
Dated: May 28, 2015
I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing and
paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.
By:
/s/ Deepika B. Shukla

DEEPIKA B. SHUKLA
Assistant U.S. Attorney
TABLE OF CONTENTS
______________________________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTION
TITLE
PAGE
FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
General Instructions
1
Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ..................5
What Is Evidence; Inferences ......................................................................7
Kinds of Evidence: Direct and Circumstantial ............................................8
What Is Not Evidence ..................................................................................9
Preparation of Witnesses............................................................................11
Defendants Constitutional Right Not to Testify .......................................12
Defendants Interest if Defendant Testifies ...............................................13
Definition of Knowingly ............................................................................14
Definition of Willfully ...............................................................................15
10
Inconsistencies ...........................................................................................16
11
Statement by Defendant .............................................................................17
12
False Exculpatory Statements ....................................................................18
13
Cautionary and Limiting Instructions as to Particular Kinds of Evidence.19
14
Cooperating Witness ..................................................................................20
15
Stipulations ................................................................................................21
16
Charts and Summaries ...............................................................................22
17
Use of Recordings and Transcripts ............................................................23
18
Sympathy ...................................................................................................24
19
Punishment.................................................................................................25
20
Variance-Dates ...........................................................................................26
21
All Available Evidence Need Not Be Produced ........................................27
Elements of the Crime

22
Extortion ....................................................................................................28
23
Wire Fraud .................................................................................................30
24
Money Laundering .....................................................................................33
Deliberations and Verdict

25
Foreperson=s Role; Unanimity ...................................................................36
26
Consideration of Evidence .........................................................................37
27
Reaching Agreement ..................................................................................38
28
Return of Verdict Form ..............................................................................39
29
Communication with the Court ..................................................................40
GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (1)

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
It is a cardinal principle of our system of justice that every person accused of a crime is
presumed to be innocent unless and until his or her guilt is established beyond a reasonable
doubt. The presumption is not a mere formality. It is a matter of the most important substance.
The presumption of innocence alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt and to
require the acquittal of a defendant. The defendant before you, has the benefit of that
presumption throughout the trial, and you are not to convict him of a particular charge unless you
are persuaded of his guilt of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The presumption of innocence until proven guilty means that the burden of proof is
always on the government to satisfy you that the defendant is guilty of the crime with which he is
charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The law does not require that the government prove guilt
beyond all possible doubt; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient to convict. This burden
never shifts to the defendant. It is always the governments burden to prove each of the elements
of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence and the reasonable inferences
to be drawn from that evidence. Joseph Buffis has the right to rely upon the failure or inability of
the government to establish beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of a crime charged
against him.
If, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt
as to the defendants guilt of a particular crime, it is your duty to acquit him of that crime. On the
other hand, if, after fair and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are satisfied beyond
a reasonable doubt of the defendants guilt of a particular crime, you should vote to convict him.
SOURCE
Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit (Judge D. Brock
Hornbys 2015 Revisions), Instruction No. 3.02.

What Is Evidence; Inferences
The evidence from which you are to decide what the facts are consists of sworn
testimony of witnesses, both on direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the
witness; the exhibits that have been received into evidence; and any facts to which the lawyers
have agreed or stipulated. A stipulation means simply that the government and Joseph Buffis
accept the truth of a particular proposition or fact. Since there is no disagreement, there is no
need for evidence apart from the stipulation. You must accept the stipulation as fact to be given
whatever weight you choose.
Although you may consider only the evidence presented in the case, you are not limited
in considering that evidence to the bald statements made by the witnesses or contained in the
documents. In other words, you are not limited solely to what you see and hear as the witnesses
testify. You are permitted to draw from facts that you find to have been proven such reasonable
inferences as you believe are justified in the light of common sense and personal experience.
SOURCE

Kinds of Evidence: Direct and Circumstantial
There are two kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof
of a fact, such as testimony of an eyewitness that the witness saw something. Circumstantial
evidence is indirect evidence that is proof of a fact or facts from which you could draw the
inference, by reason and common sense, that another fact exists, even though it has not been
proven directly. You are entitled to consider both kinds of evidence. The law permits you to give
equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
SOURCE

What Is Not Evidence
Certain things are not evidence. I will list them for you:
(1) Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not
witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments and at other times is
intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember
them from the evidence differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them
controls.
(2) Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Lawyers have a duty to their
clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You
should not be influenced by the objection or by my ruling on it.
(3) Anything that I have excluded from evidence or ordered stricken and instructed you to
disregard is not evidence. You must not consider such items.
(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not
evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at trial.
(5) The indictment is not evidence. This case, like most criminal cases, began with an
indictment. You will have that indictment before you in the course of your deliberations in the
jury room. That indictment was returned by a grand jury, which heard only the governments
side of the case. I caution you, as I have before, that the fact that Joseph Buffis has had an
indictment filed against him is no evidence whatsoever of his guilt. The indictment is simply an
accusation. It is the means by which the allegations and charges of the government are brought
before this court. The indictment proves nothing.
SOURCE
10

Preparation of Witnesses
Some mention has been made of the preparation of witnesses to testify by the Assistant
United States Attorneys. There is nothing wrong with a lawyer preparing a witness to testify.
As a matter of fact, if the lawyers did not do some preparation, this case would be much longer
than it has been. It is to be expected that when an attorney puts a witness on the stand for direct
examination, he will have met with the witness and know what the answers are going to be most
of the time, that is, assuming the witness is willing to talk to the lawyer ahead of time.
The fact that a witness met with an attorney prior to that witness testifying before you,
standing alone, should not usually cause you to discredit the testimony of that witness. You
may, however, consider the fact that a witness was willing to meet, or not meet, with one side or
the other, prior to this case, in evaluating the witness= testimony. You may also consider whether
any such meeting did, in fact, influence the testimony of the witness.
SOURCE
Adapted from Judge McNaught=s charge in United States v. Ronna, Cr. No. 81-13-Mc. See also,
Judge Zobel=s charge in United States v. Kepreos, Cr. No. 83-12-Z.
11

Defendants Constitutional Right Not to Testify
The Defendant has a constitutional right not to testify and no inference of guilt, or of
anything else, may be drawn from the fact that Joseph Buffis did not testify. For any of you to
draw such an inference would be wrong; indeed, it would be a violation of your oath as a juror.
SOURCE
12

Defendants Interest if Defendant Testifies
(Requested only if the defendant testifies)
In a criminal case, the defendant cannot be required to testify, but, if he chooses to testify,
he is, of course, permitted to take the witness stand on his own behalf. In this case, the defendant
decided to testify. You should examine and evaluate his testimony just as you would the
testimony of any witness with an interest in the outcome of this case.
SOURCE
Adapted from l L. Sand, et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal, & 7.01, Instruction
No. 7-4 (2013). See United States v. Gonsalves, 435 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v.
Dwyer, 843 F.2d 60, 62-63 (1st Cir. 1988); United States v. Rollins, 784 F.2d 35, 36-38 (1st Cir.
1986).
13

Definition of Knowingly
The word knowingly, as that term has been used from time to time in these
instructions, means that the act was done voluntarily and intentionally and not because of
mistake or accident.
SOURCE
14

Definition of Willfully
To act willfully means to act voluntarily and intelligently and with the specific intent
that the underlying crime be committedthat is to say, with bad purpose, either to disobey or
disregard the lawnot to act by ignorance, accident or mistake.
SOURCE
15

Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of a witness or between the testimony of
different witnesses may or may not cause you to disbelieve or discredit such testimony. Innocent
misrecollection or inconsistent recollection, like failure of recollection, is not an uncommon
experience. Also, two or more persons witnessing an incident or a transaction may simply see or
hear it differently. In weighing the effect of a discrepancy, always consider whether it pertains to
a matter of importance or an insignificant detail and consider whether the discrepancy results
from innocent error or intentional falsehood.
SOURCE
Adapted from 1A OMalley, Grenig, and Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Criminal,
15.01 (6th ed.) (database updated February 2014).
16

Statements by Defendant
You have heard evidence that Joseph Buffis made statements in which the government
claims he admitted certain facts.
It is for you to decide (1) whether Joseph Buffis made the statement, and (2) if so, how
much weight to give it. In making those decisions, you should consider all of the evidence about
the statement, including the circumstances under which the statement may have been made and
any facts or circumstances tending to corroborate or contradict the version of events described in
the statement.
SOURCE
17

False Exculpatory Statements
When a Defendant voluntarily and intentionally offers an explanation, or makes some
statement before trial tending to show his or her innocence, and that explanation or statement is
later shown to be false, you may consider whether this evidence points to a consciousness of
guilt. The significance to be attached to any such evidence is a matter for you to determine.
SOURCE
Eight Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 4.15 (2009); see also United
States v. Eley, 723 F.2d 1522, 1525 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Zang, 703 F.2d 1186, 1191
(10th Cir. 1982); United States v. McDougald, 650 F.2d 523, 522 (4th Cir. 1981) (citing Wilson
v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 621 (1896)); United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 124041 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Pringle, 576 F.2d 1114, 1120 (5th Cir. 1978).
18

Cautionary and Limiting Instructions as to Particular Kinds of Evidence
A particular item of evidence is sometimes received for a limited purpose only. That is, it
can be used by you only for one particular purpose, and not for any other purpose. I have told
you when that occurred, and instructed you on the purposes for which the item can and cannot be
used.
SOURCE
19

Cooperating Witness
You have heard the testimony of Tara Viola and Fusco. They:
1. provided evidence under agreements with the government; and
2. testified under a grant of immunity.
Immunity means that Tara Viola and Thomas Fuscos testimony may not be used
against them in any subsequent criminal proceeding. However, if they testified untruthfully, they
could be prosecuted for perjury or making a false statement, even though they were testifying
under a grant of immunity.
Some people in this position are entirely truthful when testifying. Still, you should
consider the testimony of Tara Viola and Thomas Fusco with particular caution. They may have
had reason to make up stories or exaggerate what others did because they wanted to help
themselves. You must determine whether the testimony of such a witness has been affected by
any interest in the outcome of this case, any prejudice for or against the defendant, or by any of
the benefits he has received from the government.
SOURCE
20

Stipulations
The evidence in this case includes facts to which the lawyers have agreed or stipulated. A
stipulation means simply that the government and the defendant accept the truth of a particular
proposition or fact. Since there is no disagreement, there is no need for evidence apart from the
stipulation. You must accept the stipulation as fact to be given whatever weight you choose.
SOURCE
21

Charts and Summaries
The government has presented exhibits in the form of charts and summaries. These
charts and summaries were either admitted in place of the underlying documents or in addition to
the underlying documents that they represent.
These charts and summaries were prepared in
order to save you time and avoid unnecessary inconvenience. You should consider these charts
and summaries as you would any other evidence.
SOURCE
Adapted from 1 L. Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal, & 5.05, Instruction
No. 5-12 (2007) and Fed. R. Evid. 1006.
22

Use of Recordings and Transcripts
At this time you are going to hear conversations that were recorded. This is proper
evidence for you to consider. In order to help you, I am going to allow you to have a transcript
to read along as the recording is played. The transcript is merely to help you understand what is
said on the recording. If you believe at any point that the transcript says something different from
what you hear on the recording, remember it is the recording that is the evidence, not the
transcript. Any time there is a variation between the recording and the transcript, you must be
guided solely by what you hear on the recording and not by what you see in the transcript.
SOURCE
23

Sympathy
Under your oath as jurors you are not to be swayed by sympathy. You are to be guided
solely by the evidence in this case, and the crucial, hard-core question that you must ask
yourselves as you sift through the evidence is: Has the government proven the guilt of the
defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?
It is for you alone to decide whether the government has proven that the defendant is
guilty of the crimes charged solely on the basis of the evidence and subject to the law as I charge
you. It must be clear to you that once you let fear or prejudice, or bias or sympathy interfere with
your thinking there is a risk that you will not arrive at a true and just verdict.
If you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant=s guilt, you should not hesitate for any
reason to find a verdict of acquittal. But on the other hand, if you should find that the government
has met its burden of proving the defendant=s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you should not
hesitate because of sympathy or any other reason to render a verdict of guilty.
SOURCE
1 L. Sand, et al, Modern Federal Jury Instructions: Criminal, & 2.01, Instruction No. 2-12 (2013);
see also United States v. Levy-Cordero, 67 F.3d 1002, 1009 (1st Cir. 1995).
24

Punishment
The question of possible punishment of the defendant is of no concern to the jury and
should not, in any sense, enter into or influence your deliberations. The duty of imposing
sentence rests exclusively upon the court. Your function is to weigh the evidence in the case and
to determine whether or not the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, solely upon the
basis of the evidence. Under your oath as jurors, you cannot allow a consideration of the
punishment which may be imposed upon the defendant, if he is convicted, to influence your
verdict in any way, or, in any sense, enter into your deliberations.
SOURCE
Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573 (1994).
25

Variance - Dates
I should draw your attention to the fact that it does not matter if the indictment charges
that a specific act occurred on or about a certain date, and the evidence indicates that, in fact, it
was on another date. The law only requires a substantial similarity, between the dates alleged in
the indictment and the date established by testimony or exhibits.
SOURCE
see United States v. Morris, 700 F.2d 427 (1st Cir. 1983).
26

All Available Evidence Need Not Be Produced
Although the government is required to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt, the government is not required to present all possible evidence related to the case or to
produce all possible witnesses who might have some knowledge about the facts of the case. In
addition, as I have explained, the defendant is not required to present any evidence or produce any
witnesses.
SOURCE
Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions Within the Third Circuit, Modern Criminal Jury
Instructions ' 3.05.
27

Extortion 18 U.S.C. 1951(a)
Count One charges Joseph Buffis with extortion by wrongful use of fear or under color of
official right on February 21, 2012. Joseph Buffis is accused of obstructing, delaying, or affecting
commerce by committing extortion. It is against federal law to engage in such conduct. For you
to find Joseph Buffis guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proven
each of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that Joseph Buffis knowingly and willfully obtained property from Tara Viola and
Thomas Fusco;
Second, that he did so by means of extortion; and
Third, that the extortion affected interstate commerce.
The term interstate commerce means commerce between any point in a state and any
point outside the state. It is only necessary that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that there is a realistic probability that the acts committed by Joseph Buffis as charged in the
indictment had some slight or minimal effect on interstate commerce. It is not necessary for you
to find that Joseph Buffis knew or intended that his actions would affect interstate commerce.
Extortion means obtaining property from another with his or her consent, but where that
consent is obtained by the wrongful use of fear or under color of official right.
To prove extortion by fear, the government must show: (1) that at least one of the alleged
victims believed that economic loss would result from failing to comply with Joseph Buffiss
demands and (2) that the circumstances made the fear reasonable. Economic loss may include the
28
possibility of lost business opportunities. But the loss feared must be a particular economic loss,
not merely the loss of a potential benefit.
To prove extortion under color of official right, the government must show that Joseph
Buffis obtained property to which he was not entitled and knew at the time that he was obtaining
it in return for official acts. The government need not show that Joseph Buffis initiated the
transfer, nor does the government need to show that Joseph Buffis actually had the ultimate
authority to achieve the desired result.
To act willfully means to act voluntarily and intelligently and with the specific intent
that the underlying crime be committedthat is to say, with bad purpose, either to disobey or
disregard the lawnot to act by ignorance, accident or mistake.
Joseph Buffis is charged with extortion by wrongful use of fear and under color of official
right. If you find that Joseph Buffis extorted at least one of his alleged victims either by use of
fear or under color of official right, you should find him guilty of extortion by wrongful use of
fear and under color of official right.
Therefore, when evaluating the charges against the
defendant, you can treat and as or.
SOURCE
Hornbys 2015 Revisions), Instruction No. 4.18.1951; United States v. Garcia-Torres, 341 F.3d
61, 66 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Simpson, 228 F.3d 1294, 1300 (11th Cir.2000))
(Quite simply, the law is well established that where an indictment charges in the conjunctive
several means of violating a statute, a conviction may be obtained on proof of only one of the
means, and accordingly the jury instruction may properly be framed in the disjunctive.).
29

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343
Counts Five through Seven charge Joseph Buffis with wire fraud on the following dates:
Count 5 November 16, 2009; Count 6 November 28, 2010; and Count 7 December 2, 2011.
Joseph Buffis is charged with violating the federal statute making wire fraud illegal.
For you to find Joseph Buffis guilty of wire fraud, you must be convinced that the
government has proven each of the following things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that there was a scheme to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of false
or fraudulent pretenses;
Second, that the scheme to defraud involved the misrepresentation or concealment of a
material fact or matter or the scheme to obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses involved a false statement, assertion, half-truth or knowing concealment concerning a
material fact or matter;
Third, that Joseph Buffis knowingly and willfully participated in this scheme with the
intent to defraud; and
Fourth, that for the purpose of executing the scheme or in furtherance of the scheme,
Joseph Buffis caused an interstate wire communication to be used, or it was reasonably
foreseeable that for the purpose of executing the scheme or in furtherance of the scheme, an
interstate wire communication would be used, on or about the date alleged.
A scheme includes any plan, pattern or course of action. It is not necessary that the
government prove all details concerning the precise nature and purpose of the scheme or that the
30
alleged scheme actually succeeded in defrauding anyone. But the government must prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that the scheme was substantially as charged.
The term defraud means to deceive another in order to obtain money or property.
The term false or fraudulent pretenses means any false statements or assertions that
were either known to be untrue when made or were made with reckless indifference to their truth
and that were made with the intent to defraud. The term includes actual, direct false statements as
well as half-truths and the knowing concealment of facts.
A material fact or matter is one that has a natural tendency to influence or be capable of
influencing the decision of the decisionmaker to whom it was addressed.
Joseph Buffis acted knowingly if he was conscious and aware of his actions, realized
what he was doing or what was happening around him and did not act because of ignorance,
mistake or accident.
An act or failure to act is willful if done voluntarily and intentionally, and with the
specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with specific intent to fail to do something the
law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law.
Thus, if Joseph Buffis acted in good faith, he cannot be guilty of the crime. The burden to
prove intent, as with all other elements of the crime, rests with the government.
Intent or knowledge may not ordinarily be proven directly because there is no way of
directly scrutinizing the workings of the human mind. In determining what Joseph Buffis knew or
intended at a particular time, you may consider any statements made or acts done or omitted by
Joseph Buffis and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence that may aid in your
determination of Joseph Buffiss knowledge or intent. You may infer, but you certainly are not
31
required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly
done or knowingly omitted. It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts are proven by
the evidence received during this trial.
The Internet is a means of interstate communication. An intrastate communication that
results in an interstate communication will suffice to satisfy the interstate nexus so long as the
interstate communication was reasonably foreseeable, and the content of reasonable foreseeability
must inevitably keep pace with advances in technology and the general awareness of such
advances.
The wire communication does not itself have to be essential to the scheme, but it must
have been made for the purpose of carrying it out. There is no requirement that Joseph Buffis
himself was responsible for the wire communication, that the wire communication itself was
fraudulent or that the use of wire communications facilities in interstate commerce was intended
as the specific or exclusive means of accomplishing the alleged fraud. But the government must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Joseph Buffis knew, or could reasonably have foreseen, that
use of a wire communication would follow in the course of the scheme.
SOURCE
Hornbys 2015 Revisions), Instruction No. 4.18.1343.; United States v. Dwinells, 508 F.3d 63, 65
(1st Cir. 2007); United States v. DeBiasi, 712 F.2d 785, 791 (2d Cir. 1983); United States v.
Muni, 668 F.2d 87, 89-90 (2d Cir. 1981); Eisenberger v. Spectex Industries, Inc., 644 F. Supp. 48,
51 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (following DeBiasi); BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg) Societe Anonyme v.
Khalil, 56 F. Supp. 2d. 14, 52 (D.D.C. 1999) (following DeBiasi).
32

Money Laundering 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)
Counts Two through Four and Eight through Eleven charge Joseph Buffis with money
laundering on the following dates: Count 2 February 23, 2012; Count 3 February 27, 2012;
Count 4 March 20, 2013; Count 8 December 16, 2011; Count 9 January 4, 2012; Count 10
January 5, 2012, and Count 11 January 11, 2012.
Joseph Buffis is charged with violating that portion of the federal money laundering
statute that prohibits concealment of the proceeds of certain unlawful activities. It is against
federal law to engage in such concealment. For Joseph Buffis to be convicted of this crime, you
must be convinced that the government has proven each of the following things beyond a
reasonable doubt:
First, that Joseph Buffis entered into a financial transaction or transactions, on or about the
date alleged, with a financial institution engaged in interstate commerce;
Second, that the transaction involved the use of proceeds of unlawful activities,
specifically, proceeds of the extortion or wire fraud;
Third, that Joseph Buffis knew that these were the proceeds of some kind of crime that
amounts to a state or federal felony; and
Fourth, that Joseph Buffis knew that the transaction or transactions were designed in
whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the
proceeds of that specified unlawful activity.
A withdrawal, deposit, or transfer of funds from a bank is a financial transaction.
33
Proceeds means any profits that someone acquires or retains as a result of the
commission of the unlawful activity.
Knowledge may not ordinarily be proven directly because there is no way of directly
scrutinizing the workings of the human mind. In determining what Joseph Buffis knew or
intended at a particular time, you may consider any statements made or acts done or omitted by
Joseph Buffis and all other facts and circumstances received in evidence that may aid in your
determination of Joseph Buffiss knowledge or intent. You may infer, but you are certainly not
required to infer, that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of acts knowingly
done or knowingly omitted. It is entirely up to you, however, to decide what facts are proven by
the evidence received during this trial.
Concealment means that at least one purpose for the transaction was to conceal or
disguise the assets. The government may prove concealment through direct evidence, like the
defendants own statements, or by circumstantial evidence, like the steps a defendant has taken to
disguise a transaction. The government need not show that the defendant concealed his own
identity during the transaction. Concealment may be found if a transaction that is not concealed is
part of a larger money laundering scheme. Commingling proceeds of extortion or fraud with
other money for the purpose of concealing the nature of source of the extortion or fraud proceeds
constitutes concealment.
Where proceeds of extortion or fraud are commingled with other money, the government
need not trace the funds constituting the criminal proceeds. Therefore, the government does not
need to show that funds withdrawn from the defendant's account could not possibly have come
from any source other than the extortion or fraud.
34
SOURCE
Hornbys 2015 Revisions), Instruction No. 4.18.1956(a)(1)(B)(i); United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d
42, 50 (1st Cir. 2005); United States v. Burns, 162 F.3d 840, 848-49 (5th Cir. 1998); United
States v. Iacaboni, 221 F. Supp. 2d 104, 117 (D. Mass. 2002) (citing United States v. McGauley,
279 F.3d 62, 76 (1st Cir. 2002)); United States v. Sokolow, 91 F.3d 396, 409 (3rd Cir. 1996);
United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 570 (10th Cir. 1992).
35

Foreperson=s Role; Unanimity
I come now to the last part of the instructions, the rules for your deliberations.
When you retire you will discuss the case with the other jurors to reach agreement if you
can do so. You shall permit your foreperson to preside over your deliberations, and your
foreperson will speak for you here in court. Your verdict must be unanimous.
SOURCE
36

Consideration of Evidence
Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence and on the law as I have given it to you
in these instructions. However, nothing that I have said or done is intended to suggest what your
verdict should beCthat is entirely for you to decide.
SOURCE
37

Reaching Agreement
Each of you must decide the case for yourself, but you should do so only after considering
all the evidence, discussing it fully with the other jurors, and listening to the views of the other
jurors.
Do not be afraid to change your opinion if you think you are wrong. But do not come to a
decision simply because other jurors think it is right.
This case has taken time and effort to prepare and try. There is no reason to think it could
be better tried or that another jury is better qualified to decide it. It is important therefore that you
reach a verdict if you can do so conscientiously. If it looks at some point as if you may have
difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict, and if the greater number of you are agreed on a
verdict, the jurors in both the majority and the minority should reexamine their positions to see
whether they have given careful consideration and sufficient weight to the evidence that has
favorably impressed the jurors who disagree with them. You should not hesitate to reconsider
your views from time to time and to change them if you are persuaded that this is appropriate.
It is important that you attempt to return a verdict, but of course, only if each of you can
do so after having made your own conscientious determination. Do not surrender an honest
conviction as to the weight and effect of the evidence simply to reach a verdict.
SOURCE
38

Return of Verdict Form
I want to read to you now what is called the verdict form. This is simply the written
notice of the decision you will reach in this case.
[Read form.]
After you have reached unanimous agreement on a verdict, your foreperson will fill in the
form that has been given to you, sign and date it, and advise the jury officer outside your door
that you are ready to return to the courtroom.
After you return to the courtroom, your foreperson will deliver the completed verdict
form as directed in open court.
SOURCE
39

Communication with the Court
If it becomes necessary during your deliberations to communicate with me, you may send
a note through the jury officer signed by your foreperson or by one or more members of the jury.
No member of the jury should ever attempt to communicate with me on anything concerning the
case except by a signed writing, and I will communicate with any member of the jury on
anything concerning the case only in writing, or orally here in open court. If you send out a
question, I will consult with the parties as promptly as possible before answering it, which may
take some time. You may continue with your deliberations while waiting for the answer to any
question. Remember that you are not to tell anyone including me how the jury stands,
numerically or otherwise, until after you have reached a unanimous verdict or have been
discharged.
SOURCE
40

Buffis Trial: Proposed Jury Instructions (Government)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buffis Trial: Proposed Jury Instructions (Government)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 1 of 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Criminal No. 13-CR-30028-MGM

GOVERNMENTS PROPOSED FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 2 of 40

/s/ Deepika B. Shukla

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 3 of 40

Presumption of Innocence; Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ..................5

What Is Evidence; Inferences ......................................................................7

Kinds of Evidence: Direct and Circumstantial ............................................8

What Is Not Evidence ..................................................................................9

Defendants Constitutional Right Not to Testify .......................................12

Defendants Interest if Defendant Testifies ...............................................13

Definition of Knowingly ............................................................................14

Definition of Willfully ...............................................................................15

Statement by Defendant .............................................................................17

False Exculpatory Statements ....................................................................18

Cautionary and Limiting Instructions as to Particular Kinds of Evidence.19

Cooperating Witness ..................................................................................20

Charts and Summaries ...............................................................................22

Use of Recordings and Transcripts ............................................................23

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 4 of 40

All Available Evidence Need Not Be Produced ........................................27

Elements of the Crime

Wire Fraud .................................................................................................30

Money Laundering .....................................................................................33

Deliberations and Verdict

Foreperson=s Role; Unanimity ...................................................................36

Consideration of Evidence .........................................................................37

Reaching Agreement ..................................................................................38

Return of Verdict Form ..............................................................................39

Communication with the Court ..................................................................40

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 5 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (1)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 6 of 40

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 7 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (2)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 8 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (3)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 9 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (4)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 10 of 40

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 11 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (5)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 12 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (6)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 13 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (7)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 14 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (8)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 15 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (9)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 16 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (10)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 17 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (11)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 18 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (12)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 19 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (13)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 20 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (14)

Case 3:13-cr-30028-MGM Document 173 Filed 05/28/15 Page 21 of 40

GOVERNMENT=S REQUESTED CHARGE NO. (15)