THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow
Collection Table of Contents
Illegal Gambling Business (18 USC 1955)
1. Isolated Or Casual
Placing Of Layoff Bet Alone Is Insufficient To
Establish Required Participation
2. 18 USC 1955: There Must
Be A Violation State Law In State Where
The Gambling Business Was Conducted
3. There Must Be Five
Persons Involved And Consistent Pattern Of Betting
4. Mere Act Of Forwarding
Bets Insufficient In Itself
5. At Least Five Persons
Must Be Involved On Same Day
6. Agent Of Bettor Not A
Member Of Gambling Organization
7. Illegal Gambling
Business Conspiracy: Elements
8. Illegal Gambling
Business: "Conduct" Defined
9. Illegal Gambling
Business: "Layoff Bet" Defined
10. Agent Of Bettor vs. Agent Of
Bookmaker
11. Wagering Business: Tax Form
Requirement
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
1. Isolated Or Casual Placing Of Layoff Bet Alone Is Insufficient To Establish Required Participation
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
You have been instructed that in order to find a violation of Title 18, USC 1955, there must be at least five persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of the gambling business. In determining whether a person is such a participant in a gambling business, you should bear in mind that the isolated or casual placing of a layoff bet alone is not sufficient to establish the required participation. In considering evidence regarding lay off bets it must be shown both that the layoff bets were placed and that the lay off bettors were systematically and continuously involved in the alleged gambling business. Systematic and continuous involvement is demonstrated by a prior arrangement of cooperation, a regular exchange of profits through layoff betting and a regular exchange of "line" information. If the evidence does not establish the existence of these factors with respect to a certain defendant, you cannot include him as one of the five members of the gambling business.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Guzek, 527 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1975).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
2. 18 USC 1955: There Must Be A Violation State Law In State Where The Gambling Business Was Conducted
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In order to violate Title 18, USC 1955, the federal gambling statute, there must be a violation of the law of the state in which the gambling business was conducted. Under ________ (name of state) law, a violation of the prohibition against commercial gambling requires that the gambling business be __________ (state law violation e.g., conducted "for gain."). Accordingly, if you are unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons alleged to be writers or agents financially gained from their forwarding of bets, you may not include them among the persons alleged to be members of the illegal gambling business.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
3. There Must Be Five Persons Involved And Consistent Pattern Of Betting
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
You have been instructed that in order to find a violation of Title 18, USC 1955, there must be at least five persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of the gambling business. "Layoff betting" which involves bets placed by one bookmaker with another bookmaker, which is isolated or casual in nature is not sufficient to establish the degree of participation in a gambling business required by this statute. Rather, there must be a consistent pattern of lay off betting to establish the essential link required by § 1955.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Greco, 619 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1980).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
4. Mere Act Of Forwarding Bets Insufficient In Itself
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
You are instructed that the mere act of forwarding bets made by others does not, by itself, make the forwarder an agent or writer of the bookmaker to whom the bets are forwarded.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
5. At Least Five Persons Must Be Involved On Same Day
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
You are instructed that in order to find that five or more persons violated 18 USC 1955, the statute charged in Count(s) ______, you must be able to find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence in this case that the same five persons were involved on a day when $2,000 or more was wagered. If all you find is that one group of less than five was involved on one day and another group of less than five individuals, not all of whom were members of the first group, was involved on a different day, you may not find any defendant guilty of violating § 1955.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Gresko, 632 F.2d 1128, 1133-34 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Bridges, 493 F.2d 918, 922 (5th Cir. 1974); 18 U.S.C. § 1955.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
6. Agent Of Bettor Not A Member Of Gambling Organization
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
One who acts in the role of a "beard" and places a bet for another without revealing the bettor's true identity is merely acting as an agent of the bettor and does not thereby become a member of any gambling organization. If, however, you find that the bettor was placing layoff wagers through a "beard," then you must consider whether the "beard" has become a part of the layoff bettor's bookmaking organization.
CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:
United States v. Balistrieri, Case No. 81-CR-152 (E.D. Wis. 1983).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
7. Illegal Gambling Business Conspiracy: Elements
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In order to establish the offense charged by Count ___ of the indictment of conspiracy to violate the federal law against operating illegal gambling businesses, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That beginning on or before __________ (date) and continuing until on or about __________ (date), there existed a conspiracy or agreement among the defendants __________ (name of defendants), and others that they would conduct, finance, supervise, direct or own part of illegal gambling businesses in violation of 18 USC 1955;
2. That during the period __________ (date) to and continuing until on or about __________ (date), at least one overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; and
3. That each defendant charged by Count ___ knowingly and intentionally became a member of the conspiracy.
In addition, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt either:
1. That at all times during the period of the charged conspiracy, there were five or more identified persons involved in the conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing or ownership of illegal gambling businesses; or
2. That each defendant charged by Count ____ knew or intended that at all times five or more identified persons would be involved in the conducting, financing, managing, supervising, directing or ownership of illegal gambling businesses.
AUTHORITIES:
Modified, Federal Criminal Jury Instructions of the Seventh Circuit, 5.11; United States v. Greco, 619 F.2d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 1980).
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
8. Illegal Gambling Business: "Conduct" Defined
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The term "conduct" as it is used in connection with the gambling business means to perform any act, function or duty which is necessary to the ordinary operation of the business.
AUTHORITIES:
From 8TH CIRCUIT MODEL INSTRUCTIONS 6.18.1955 [Illegal Gambling Business] (2000).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
9. Illegal Gambling Business: "Layoff Bet" Defined
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
A layoff bet is a wager placed by one bookmaker with another bookmaker which is necessitated by the influx of an imbalance of bets and wagers on a sporting event and which has the effect of distributing the bets and wagers, thus minimizing the risks of substantial loss. In order to find that a particular wager was a layoff wager, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that both the imbalance of bets and the desire to minimize risks referred to earlier existed.
Under some circumstances, a layoff bettor may be included among the "five or more persons" who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of a gambling business. However, a layoff bettor may not be included among the "five or more persons" unless there is evidence of a consistent or regular pattern of layoff betting between the layoff bettor and the other bookmaker.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Greco, 619 F.2d 635, 639 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Leon (Bourgeois), 534 F.2d 667, 672, 677 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. McCoy (Bell), 639 F.2d 1050, 1062 (5th Cir. 1976).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
10. Agent Of Bettor vs. Agent Of Bookmaker
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
An individual who merely takes bets from another individual and places those bets with a bookmaker is an agent of the bettor and is not an agent of the bookmaker. An individual who places bets with a bookmaker under these circumstances may not be included among the "five or more persons" who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct or own all or part of a gambling business unless the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the individual regularly and almost exclusively relays bets to the same bookmaker, that he receives compensation from the bookmaker for (his/her) services, and that (he/she) takes directions from the bookmaker.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Leon (Taylor), 534 F.2d 667, 676 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Boyd (Howard), 566 F.2d 929, 935-36 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Bourg (Guillot and Rachal), 598 F.2d 445, 448 (5th Cir. 1979).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
11. Wagering Business: Tax Form Requirement
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
For a defendant to be required by law or regulation to file tax forms 730 and 11-C, (he/she) must be engaged in the business of accepting wagers with respect to sporting events. A defendant may not be found to be engaged in the business of accepting wagers unless the government proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that for each period of wagering activity, (he/she) has a proprietary interest in a wagering operation.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Bowen, 411 F.2d 923, 926 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 360 (1957).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 256.2.1 [Compulsive Gambler Disorder As Defense Theory].
See NCJIC Federal Model Instructions by Offense: 18 USC 1955: Illegal Gambling Business.