THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow
Collection Table of Contents
Federally Protected Activities (18 USC 245)
1. 18 USC 245: Elements
2. Elements Which Must Be
Proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
3. Required Mental
State/Intent
4. Similar Conduct Between
Defendants Does Not Prove Conspiracy
5. Defendant Only
Responsible For His/Her Own Acts
6. Facility Not Open To
"The Public"
7. Facility Must Be
Engaged In Or Affect Interstate Commerce
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
1. 18 USC 245: Elements
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
To prove the guilt of any defendant it is necessary that it prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' conduct was undertaken for two reasons: (1) because the complainants were __________ (alleged race, color, religion or national origin) and (2) in order to prevent the complainants from _________ (i.e., enjoying the facilities of the nightclub). Unless the government has proven both of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, no defendant can be convicted of any of the crimes with which he is charged.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The defendants are charged in Count(s) _____ with substantive violations of 18 USC 245(b)(2)(F). In order to prove a violation of this statute, the government must prove each of the following elements against each of the defendants beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. That the defendant acted by force or by threat of force. This finding (either of force or of threat of force) must be unanimous;
2. That the defendant willfully injured, intimidated or interfered with, or attempted to injure, intimidate or interfere with a person. Again, such finding of injury, of intimidation, or of interference, or of attempted injury, intimidation or interference must be a unanimous finding;
3. That such action was taken against a person because of his race, color, religion or national origin. Again, the finding of race, of color, of religion or of national origin as the motivating factor must be a unanimous finding. All twelve jurors must agree that it was because of race or that it was because of color, etc.;
4. That the action was taken against the person for the additional reason that the person is or has been enjoying the facilities or accommodations of a facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling beverages for consumption on the premises. Once again, such finding of enjoyment of facilities or enjoyment of accommodations, etc., must be unanimous.
To find a defendant guilty, it is necessary for the jury to find that such defendant had not only a generally bad and evil purpose, but also had the specific purpose to injure, intimidate, or interfere with another because of that person's race, color, religion or national origin and because the person is or has been enjoying the facilities or accommodations of a facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling beverages for consumption on the premises.
It is not sufficient for the government to prove that the defendants assaulted a person, nor is it sufficient to prove that the assault was undertaken because of the victim's race, color, religion or national origin. Instead, the government must prove not only the assault and not only the racial motivation but also the additional motivation provided by the victim's enjoyment of the facilities or accommodations of a facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling beverages for consumption on the premises.
AUTHORITIES:
18 USC 245(b)(2)(F); United States v. Ellis, 595 F.2d 154, 162 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 838 (1980).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 77.15 [Hate Crimes, Interference With Civil Rights].
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
2. Elements Which Must Be Proven Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The statute involved in this action is unusual among federal criminal statutes; it is unusual because it is one of a very few federal criminal statutes that require the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt four elements having to do with the defendants' state of mind at the times material to the acts alleged in the indictment. These elements are (1) motive; (2) knowledge; (3) wilfulness; and (4) intent.
The first element is motive. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts at issue in this case were committed because of the complaining witnesses' race, color, religion or national origin, rather than being committed because of some personal anger or animosity toward them as individuals. The government must establish that antagonism based upon the complaining witnesses' race, color, religion or national origin was a substantial motivating factor responsible for the acts in question; such antagonism need not, however, have been the sole motivating factor for the acts in question.
The second element is knowledge. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant knew that persons such as the complaining witnesses are, by right, entitled to enjoy the premises of establishments such as the Outer Limits bar. The government need not prove that each defendant knew that such a right is guaranteed by a federal statute or by the United States Constitution. The government must, however, prove that each defendant knew that the acts in question were depriving the complaining witnesses of a right which they possessed.
The third element is wilfulness. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each defendant acted wilfully to deprive the complaining witnesses of known legal rights. Acting wilfully means that an individual is determined to achieve a conscious purpose. Therefore, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any actions taken by a defendant were taken because of a determination to achieve a conscious purpose, that purpose being to deprive the complaining witnesses of certain rights. An act is not wilful if it is committed carelessly or negligently.
The fourth and final element is intent. Intent is the element that links actions taken by an individual to that individual's desire to achieve a conscious purpose. The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any acts committed by a particular defendant were intended to achieve that defendant's conscious purpose of depriving the complaining witnesses of their rights.
The government must establish the presence of each and every one of these elements by proof beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every one of the defendants. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether any one of these elements has been established for any one of the defendants, then you must find that defendant not guilty of the offense charged. Only if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that all these elements have been established for a particular defendant can you find that defendant guilty of the offense charged.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. Bledsoe, 728 F.2d 1094 (8th Cir. 1984); United States v. Shafer, 384 F. Supp. 496 (N.D. Ohio 1974).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 77.15 [Hate Crimes, Interference With Civil Rights].
See NCJIC Chapter 270: Burdens And Standards Of Proof.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
3. Required Mental State/Intent
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:
The offenses with which the defendants are charged require a specific intent, and this intent can only be found if the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the purpose of the defendants to interfere with the complainants' enjoyment of the _________ (facility) because of their race, color or national origin. If you have a reasonable doubt that this was the purpose with which the defendants acted, then you must find them not guilty.
[For example:] That is, if the defendants acted because they were intoxicated, because they found the complainants' behavior obnoxious, because they were insulted by the complainants or believed they were, or for any other reason whatsoever, you may not find the defendants guilty. Similarly, if the defendants themselves were singly engaged in obnoxious behavior because they were drunk or because they did not like the complainants for any reason other than their race, color or national origin, then you also cannot find the defendants guilty.
AUTHORITY:
United States v. Franklin, 704 F.2d 1183 (10th Cir. 1983).
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:
The government cannot establish that a defendant conspired to interfere with another individual's exercise and his right to enjoy premises such as the _________ (name of facility) unless the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that any acts which this defendant may have committed in this regard were committed with the required mental state, or intent.
The mental state required for conspiring to interfere with another's exercise of his rights consists of two separate elements, both of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The first element is that the defendant in question intended to enter into a conspiracy that had an unlawful purpose as its aim.
The second element is that the defendant in question intended that the unlawful purpose which was the aim of the conspiracy should be achieved. In proving that a defendant intended that the unlawful purpose of interfering with another's enjoyment of his right should be achieved, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in question knew that individuals have a right to enjoy to enjoy premises such as the _________ (name of facility). The government need not, however, prove that the defendants knew that such a right was protected by federal statute or by the United States Constitution.
If, therefore, you find beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant intended to enter into a conspiracy with the unlawful purpose of interfering with the complaining witnesses' right to enjoy premises such as the _________ (name of facility) and that this same defendant, knowing that the complaining witnesses enjoyed this right, intended that the purpose of the conspiracy should be achieved, then you should find that the government has proven the requisite mental state for this offense.
If, however, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a particular defendant intended to enter into a conspiracy with the unlawful purpose of interfering with the complaining witnesses' right to enjoy premises such as the _________ (name of facility) , as to whether that defendant knew of these individuals' right to enjoy such premises, or as to whether that defendant intended that the purpose of interfering with these rights should be achieved, then you must find the defendant in question not guilty of the offense charged.
AUTHORITIES:
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Corporation, 438 U.S. 422 (1978); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC Chapter 45: Criminal Intent.
See NCJIC 77.15 [Hate Crimes, Interference With Civil Rights].
See NCJIC Chapter 256: Mitigation Of Culpability By Mental Psychological, Medical And/Or Physical Impairment Of The Defendant.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
4. Similar Conduct Between Defendants Does Not Prove Conspiracy
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Merely because some of the defendants engaged in similar conduct does not prove that any of them entered into a conspiracy to engage in such conduct. Conspiracy requires that they agree, either directly or tacitly, that they would assault the victim(s) because of (his/her/their) race, color or national origin for the purpose of interfering with their enjoyment of the facilities or accommodations of the _____________ (name of facility). That is, merely because people act in the same way is not proof that they acted pursuant to a prior agreement or conspiracy.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 77.15 [Hate Crimes, Interference With Civil Rights].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
5. Defendant Only Responsible For His/Her Own Acts
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conspired to assault the victim(s) because of their race, color or national origin for the purpose of interfering with their enjoyment of the [facilities of ___________ (name of facility)], each defendant is responsible only for (his/her) own acts and not for the acts of other defendants.
RELATED SHELLOW MATERIALS:
See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Conspiracy.
RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:
See NCJIC 77.15 [Hate Crimes, Interference With Civil Rights].
See NCJIC Chapter 83: Conspiracy.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
6. Facility Not Open To "The Public"
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
The defendants are charged with violating 18 USC 245(b)(2)(F). That statute is applicable to certain activities taking place in "any restaurant, cafeteria, lunch room, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public. . . ." If the evidence which you have heard causes you to believe that the _______________ (name of facility) restricts admission to those 18 years or age or older, and it accordingly does not serve the public, then you must acquit the defendants.
THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
7. Facility Must Be Engaged In Or Affect Interstate Commerce
ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
In order to find the defendants guilty of any offense, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the ________ (name of facility) was engaged in interstate commerce or that the operation of the ________ (name of facility) affected interstate commerce.
AUTHORITY:
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).