Charles Rainer Sinek v. United States

Petitioner was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). At trial, the defense requested the jury be instructed on the affirmative defense of duress. The district court refused to provide the parties with a written copy of any jury instructions, but told the parties that, if any duress charge was given, it would be the pattern jury charge. Without notifying the parties, the district court used language which had been proposed by the government when it instructed the jury on the elements of duress. That language, which was not part of the pattern jury instruction, significantly undermined the arguments made by the defense in summation. On appeal, the Second Circuit denied relief because it did not believe that the jury instructions sufficiently contradicted Petitioner’s summation to establish prejudice. Therefore, the following is the question presented. When a district court violates Fed. R. Crim. P. 30 and delivers a jury instruction different than what the parties were told to expect,