Opinion
2:19-cr-00107-KJM
04-22-2024
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Ronald Yandell, William Sylvester, and Daniel Troxell, Defendants.
The court, counsel for the government and counsel for defendants Ronald Yandell, William Sylvester and Daniel Troxell discussed final jury instructions in conferences outside the presence of the jury on April 8, 9, and 18, 2024. See Mins., ECF Nos. 2208, 2215, 2265. The parties also filed written proposals and arguments regarding final jury instructions. See ECF Nos. 2156, 2177, 2180, 2181, 2193, 2195, 2263, 2266. On April 18, 2024, after a final jury instruction conference, the court filed final jury instructions subject to the parties' formal written objections. ECF No. 2269. The parties have now filed formal written objections, which largely memorialize objections made previously in writing or orally at one or more of the jury instruction conferences. ECF Nos. 2270, 2271, 2273. The court has reviewed the parties' written objections and overrules those objections for the reasons discussed on the record in the jury instruction conferences. For clarity, however, the court offers two specific confirmations below. Each relates to instructions modified in light of discussions at the conference on April 18, 2024.
First, the court confirms it has carefully considered defendants' objections to the revised instructions on liability for substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators, i.e., the Pinkerton instructions. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946); Final Jury Instruction Nos. 42, 47, 48. These instructions, in their final form, accurately state the governing law and are appropriate in the circumstances of this case. See United States v. Bingham, 653 F.3d 983, 99798 (2011) (explaining Pinkerton liability in prosecution against members of an Aryan Brotherhood conspiracy); Ninth Cir. Jury Instructions Committee, Manual of Model Crim. Jury Instr. No. 11.6 (2022 ed.) (Last Updated Dec. 2023) (model instruction on Pinkerton liability). Additionally, this case differs from others in which district courts have declined to give similar instructions, most importantly because the proposed instructions in this case are now tailored to distinct charges, actors and conspiracies. Cf., e.g., Mem. Op. re Rejection of Late-Proposed Pinkerton Instruction, United States v. Carcamo, No. 08-0730 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2011), ECF No. 4986 (rejecting generalized instruction).
Second, the court confirms it has considered defendants' requests for more specific instructions on the law regarding murder in California. See Final Instruction Nos. 35-36. The additional language the defense requests is potentially confusing and would require more than the relevant federal law does, as discussed on the record during conferences on jury instructions and on pages 3-5 of the government's response at ECF No. 2195.
IT IS SO ORDERED.