THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow
Collection Table of Contents
Evidence: Documentary Evidence
1. Documents:
Authentication; Weight
2. Document
Authentication: Jury Determines Authenticity
3. Document
Authentication: Jury Can Only Consider Evidence Admitted
4. Document Authenticity:
Document Cannot Be Considered If Proof Of Identity
Of Signer Is In Dispute
5. Documentary Evidence:
Signature Not Proof Of Identity
6. Document May Be
Considered If Defendant Stipulates To Signature; Effect
Of Stipulation On Other
Defendants
7. Authenticity Of
Documents Need Not Be Established If Sole Purpose Of
Documents Is To Show Notice
Or Some Other Purpose
8. Content Of Document Not
Admitted For Its Truth Is Not Evidence Against Defendant
9. Number Of Copies Of
Document Admitted Not Relevant
10. Documents: Authentication;
Handwriting Expert
11. Documents: Limiting Instruction
12. Public Record: Weight
13. Computer Printouts: Weight
14. Unintelligible Documents
Untrustworthy
15. Authenticity Of Anonymous
Documents
16. Anonymous Documents: Weight
17. Admissibility Of Written
Statement By Defendant: Proof Of Signature By
Lay Person, Expert, Admission Or
Stipulation
18. Documents Not Evidence Without
Link To Defendant; Conspiracy
19. Documents Must Be Produced In
Course Of Conspiracy
20. Destruction Of Documents: No
Violation Unless Covered In Search Warrant
21. Document Not Admitted Into
Evidence
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
1. Documents: Authentication; Weight
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
Authentication involves establishing the origin or authorship of an item, or the connection of an item to a particular individual or party.
AUTHORITIES:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1221 (E.D. Pa. l98l); See also, Rhoads v. Virginia-Florida Corporation, 476 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1973), citing 7 Wigmore on Evidence §2129, at 564 (3d Ed. 1940), all cited in Zenith Radio Corp.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Zapata, No. 87-CR-84 (E.D. Wis. 1987); United States v. Kramer, No. 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982)
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
Authentication involves establishing the origin or authorship of an item, and thus its authenticity. If you are not satisfied that the party introducing a particular document has established that, you should not give the document any weight.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1221 (E.D. Pa. 1980); see also Rhoads v. Virginia-Florida Corp., 476 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir. 1973), citing 7 Wigmore on Evidence §2129, at 564 (3d ed. 1940).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
I have admitted certain documents in evidence. Merely because I have admitted these documents does not require the jury to place any particular trust in these documents nor to assign any particular weight to them. The weight of the evidence is for the jury to decide; the Court merely applies the law to determine whether the jury can see or hear the evidence.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
2. Document Authentication: Jury Determines Authenticity
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Before the jury may consider any document it must be authenticated by the proponent of the document. That is, before a party may rely upon a document which has been admitted as evidence, the jury must conclude that the document is what its offeror claims it to be. [Even though the Court may have admitted a document, it is the jury who will ultimately determine the authenticity of the evidence, not the Court.]
AUTHORITIES:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1219 (E.D. Pa. l98l); United States v. Goichman, 547 F.2d 778, 784 (3d Cir. 1976).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994); United States v. Zapata, No. 87-CR-84 (E.D. Wis. 1987) [modified bracketed material deleted]; United States v. Kramer, 81-CR-106 (E.D. Wis. 1982); United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D. Nev. 1980).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
3. Document Authentication: Jury Can Only Consider Evidence Admitted
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In determining whether or not a document has been established as authentic, the jury may only consider evidence which has been admitted by the Court.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1220 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
4. Document Authenticity: Document Cannot Be Considered If Proof Of Identity Of Signer Is In Dispute
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Where the authenticity of a document is dependent upon the government's proof of the identity of the person who signed it and the defendant has not stipulated to the identity of this person, then the document cannot be considered by the jury against the defendant who did not stipulate to its authenticity.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., 505 F. Supp. 1190 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
5. Documentary Evidence: Signature Not Proof Of Identity
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The fact that a document bears a signature is not evidence of the identity of the person who signed the document.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
6. Document May Be Considered If Defendant Stipulates To Signature; Effect Of Stipulation On Other Defendants
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
If one defendant stipulates with the government that his signature appears on a document, then that document may be considered as evidence against him because, as to him, it has been authenticated. Unless such document is otherwise authenticated, such stipulation, however, does not authenticate the document as to other defendants who have not joined in the stipulation and may not be considered as evidence against such other defendants.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D.C. Nev. 1981).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
A document which was admitted on the basis of its being proven by stipulation to have been authored by one of the defendants has been authenticated only as to that defendant unless other defendants have also stipulated to its authenticity and authorship. A defendant who stipulates to his signature on a document authenticates that document as to him and only as to him. It is neither authenticated, nor may it be considered as evidence, against defendants who are not parties to that stipulation, unless the government has offered other proof of its authenticity.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1248 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:
Where the government relies only upon a stipulation to prove the identity of the person who signed a document, and the identity of the signor is essential to the authentication of the document, then the document cannot be considered as evidence against any defendant who did not join the stipulation.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 24.2.3 [What Is Evidence: Stipulations].
See NCJIC 39.1 [Stipulation As Defense Strategy].
See NCJIC 270.1.4 [Impact Of Stipulation On Burden Of Proof].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
7. Authenticity Of Documents Need Not Be Established If Sole Purpose Of Documents Is To Show Notice Or Some Other Purpose
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
If a document is offered for the truth of its contents, then it must be authenticated. However, the authenticity of documents need not be established if [the sole purpose of the documents is to show notice] [it is admitted for some other purpose].
AUTHORITY:
Phillips v. United States, 356 F.2d 297, 307 (9th Cir. 1966).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
8. Content Of Document Not Admitted For Its Truth Is Not Evidence Against Defendant
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The content of a document which was not admitted for its truth is not evidence against any defendant.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
9. Number Of Copies Of Document Admitted Not Relevant
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The number of copies of any document admitted into evidence has no effect on the truth or falsity of the information contained in the document.
The weight to be given any evidence is within the sole province of the jury.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D.C. Nev. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
10. Documents: Authentication; Handwriting Expert
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Where the government authenticated a document with the testimony of its handwriting expert, __________ (name of expert) , you may consider the degree of confidence expressed by the expert that (his/her) opinion was accurate with respect to the identification of handwriting or signatures on that document.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses: Expert Witnesses.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC 29.1 [Expert Qualification And Scope Of Expert Testimony].
See NCJIC 29.1.18 [Challenge To Expert Handwriting Comparison].
See NCJIC 29.2 [Instruction On Expert Testimony].
See NCJIC 32.14.1 [Challenging Prosecution Forensic Evidence: Handwriting].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
11. Documents: Limiting Instruction
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The government has introduced as evidence certain documents, Exhibits ____ and ____, which it alleges were prepared by persons other than the defendant. None of the statements contained in these documents constitutes the statement charged in the indictment. You may consider these documents only on the question of . These documents are to be considered by you only for this limited purpose and not as evidence of the falsity of any statement alleged in the indictment against the defendant.
AUTHORITY:
Federal Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, §3.08 (modified).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC Chapter 26: Limited Purpose Evidence.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
12. Public Record: Weight
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In considering the weight to be given to any document which was admitted as a public record the jury may consider where and when the author of the document got the information included therein.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1271 (E.D. Pa. l98l).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
13. Computer Printouts: Weight
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The Court has admitted certain computer printouts. In considering the weight and credibility to be given to these documents, you may consider whether the government called the preparer of the document or any other witness who was shown to be familiar with the operation of the computer and its programming.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Mercado, Case No. 93-CR-116 (E.D. Wis. 1994).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
14. Unintelligible Documents Untrustworthy
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
A document which is unintelligible is for that reason untrustworthy if offered to prove the truth of one interpretation out of many possible interpretations which could be put on the document. When a document, unintelligible on its face, is presented to the trier of fact, it is not probative evidence, but merely an invitation to engage in unfounded speculation.
AUTHORITY:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1236-38 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
A document which is unintelligible is for that reason untrustworthy if offered to prove the truth of one interpretation out of many possible interpretations which could be put on the document. When a document, unintelligible on its face, is presented to the trier of fact, you may consider that in deciding what weight, if any, to give the document. A document may be of little or no help if its unintelligible nature leaves you to engage in unfounded speculation.
AUTHORITIES:
Zenith Radio Corporation v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Company, Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1236-38 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom., In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574 (1986). N.B. that the Third Circuit specifically reversed the district court's exclusion of certain documents from FRE 803(6) on the ground that their unintelligible nature made them untrustworthy; the Third Circuit held that unintelligibility does not bear on trustworthiness. However, defendants suggest here that unintelligibility still may affect properly the jury's consideration of weight and credibility, once the trial court has admitted the documents under Rule 803(6).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
15. Authenticity Of Anonymous Documents
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Some of the documents that I have admitted do not name their authors. You will have to determine if, after considering all the evidence, the document is authentic. The mere fact that something is in writing does not necessarily mean that all the facts stated in the letter are true, or that any part of it is true.
AUTHORITIES:
Esco Corp. v. United States, 340 F.2d 1000, 1012 n.8 (9th Cir. 1965); see also United States v. Ward Baking Co., 243 F. Supp. 713 (E.D. Pa. 1965).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
16. Anonymous Documents: Weight
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Where there has been no evidence as to the authorship of a document, the jury may consider this in determining the weight to be given to the document. While these documents may bear every indication that they were prepared by persons in a position to know of the matters set down, their anonymity must go to the weight to be given them.
AUTHORITIES:
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., 505 F. Supp. 1190, 1223 n.31 (E.D. Pa. 1980), aff'd in part, rev'd in part sub nom., In re Japanese Electronic Products Litigation, 723 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 475 U.S. 574 (1986), citing United States v. Imperial Chemical Industries, 100 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1951); see also McCormick's Handbook on the Law of Evidence, §224 at 552 (2d Ed. 1972).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Lamon, No. 89-CR-134 (E.D. Wis. 1989) (Curran, J.); United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., Case No. 95-CR-221 (E.D. Wis. 1996); United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-80-24-ECR (D. Nev. 1981).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
17. Admissibility Of Written Statement By Defendant: Proof Of Signature By Lay Person, Expert, Admission Or Stipulation
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
I have previously explained to you the statements of a defendant are admissible against (him/her) under most circumstances. I should like at this time to address these circumstances. When a witness testifies that (he/she) heard a defendant make a statement, you are required to assess the credibility of the witness and to determine whether the statement was made, and, if so, whether the witness has recalled it accurately and testified faithfully to (his/her) recollection. If you conclude that the witness heard the statement, was able to identify the speaker as the defendant, and has accurately recounted to the jury the statement made by the defendant, then the statement recounted by the witness may be considered as evidence against the defendant.
There is another kind of statement that can be made by a defendant. That circumstance arises where a defendant has committed a statement to paper; that is, it is a written document which has either been signed by the defendant, adopted by the defendant or in some fashion ratified by (him/her). In most instances, the documentary statements which the state seeks to attribute to a defendant are statements which were purportedly prepared by (him/her). There are at least two ways of establishing that such document statements are the statements of the defendant and are admissible against (him/her). The first is that the state may offer proof either by lay witnesses or by experts that the signature on the document is that of the defendant. A second is by an admission by the defendant that (he/she) signed or prepared the document.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
I have previously explained to you the statements of defendants are admissible against them under most circumstances and under some circumstances may be admissible and considered to be the statements of others. I should like at this time to address the first of these circumstances. When a witness testifies that he heard a defendant make a statement you are required to assess the credibility of the witness and to determine whether the statement was made, and, if so, whether the witness has recalled it accurately and testified faithfully to his recollection. If you conclude that the witness heard the statement, was able to identify the speaker as the defendant, and has accurately recounted to the jury the statement made by the defendant, then the statement recounted by the witness may be considered as evidence against the defendant who made it.
There is another kind of statement that can be made by a defendant and we have had many examples of it in this case. That circumstance arises where the defendant has committed the statement to paper; that is, it is a written document which has either been signed by the defendant, adopted by the defendant or in some fashion ratified by him. In most instances, the documentary statement which the government seeks to attribute to defendants are statements which were purportedly signed by them. There are at least two ways of establishing that such documentary statements are the statements of the defendant and are admissible against him. The first is that the government may offer proof either by lay witnesses or by experts that the signature on the document is that of the defendant. The second is that the defendant may stipulate that it is his signature. In the case before you many of the defendants, if not all, have stipulated that the signatures which appear on various documents are in fact their signatures, their initials, or their handwriting. These stipulations are binding only upon the defendant who entered into the stipulation and the government. They are not binding upon other defendants.
Thus, if one defendant stipulates with the government that his signature appears on a document, then that document is admissible against him because, as to him, it has been authenticated. It is not admissible against any other defendant because it has not been authenticated as to those other defendants. Thus, these documents cannot be considered as evidence except as against those defendants who stipulated that their signatures appear thereon.
Another aspect of authenticity is that the document is what it purports to be. In considering this aspect of authentication, you must consider and weigh the testimony of persons who have knowledge concerning the preparation of the document, its genuineness, and its use. If you conclude that for any reason a document has not been authenticated as to any defendant, then you may not consider that document as evidence against that defendant.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses: Expert Witnesses.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 24.2.3 [What Is Evidence: Stipulations].
See generally NCJIC 29.1 [Expert Qualification And Scope Of Expert Testimony].
See NCJIC 29.1.18 [Challenge To Expert Handwriting Comparison].
See NCJIC 29.2 [Instruction On Expert Testimony].
See NCJIC 30.1 [Lay Or Nonexpert Opinion Testimony].
See NCJIC 32.14.1 [Challenging Prosecution Forensic Evidence: Handwriting].
See NCJIC 39.1 [Stipulation As Defense Strategy].
See NCJIC 270.1.4 [Impact Of Stipulation On Burden Of Proof].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
18. Documents Not Evidence Without Link To Defendant; Conspiracy
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Documents offered by the government may not be considered by the jury as evidence against [defendant] unless the government has proven to your satisfaction that __________ (name of defendant) knew of and approved the contents of these documents or that the documents were authored by a person found to be a member of the conspiracy alleged in the indictment.
AUTHORITY:
FRE 801(d)(2)(E).
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. James E. Johnson, Case No. 97-CR-211 (E.D. Wis. 1998) (approved by the Court but not given).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
19. Documents Must Be Produced In Course Of Conspiracy
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The documents seized on __________ (date) cannot be considered as evidence against __________ (name of defendant) unless the prosecution has proven that these documents were created by a member of a conspiracy of which [defendant] was proven beyond a reasonable to be a member, and further that, the documents were created during the time of the conspiracy, e.g., between __________ (date) and __________ (date).
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Harvey, 117 F.3d 1044, 1049-1050 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183, 1192 (7th Cir. 1991).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See generally NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
20. Destruction Of Documents: No Violation Unless Covered In Search Warrant
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
It is not a violation of law for a person to destroy documents unless he does so knowing that a search warrant has been issued for those documents and that this warrant has not been executed.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Missing/Lost/Destroyed Evidence.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 36.1 [Destroyed Or Lost Evidence].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
21. Document Not Admitted Into Evidence
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
[Peoples] [Government's] Exhibit _____was not admitted in evidence. For that reason, you may not consider as evidence any testimony concerning the contents of that document, or any other document not admitted into evidence.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Evidence: Hearsay Rule And Exceptions Business Records.