|
|
||
|
|
To download this section click on the desired file type: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6CA Home || Jury Instructions Home || Previous || Next
Chapter 13.00
FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Table of Instructions
Introduction
Instruction
13.01 Concealing a Material Fact
in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
13.02 Making a False Statement
in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
13.03 Making or Using a False
Writing in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
Introduction to False Statements Instructions
(current through December 31, 2007)
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1001 provides:
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to--
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
The pattern instructions cover the three subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) with three elements instructions:
13.01 Concealing a Material Fact
in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
13.02 Making a False Statement
in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
13.03 Making or Using a False
Writing in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the
The
Committee defined the crime in three instructions because it is the most
effective way to describe the three subsections, (a)(1),
(a)(2), and (a)(3). The Sixth Circuit has made clear that these subsections are
stated in the disjunctive and constitute alternative means of committing a
single crime.
13.01 CONCEALING A MATERIAL FACT IN A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1))
(1)
The defendant is charged with the offense of [falsifying] [concealing]
[covering up] a material fact in a matter within the jurisdiction of the
(A) First, that the defendant [falsified] [concealed] [covered up] a fact that he had a duty to disclose;
(B) Second, that the fact was material;
(C) Third, that the defendant [falsified] [concealed] [covered up] the fact by using a trick, scheme, or device;
(D) Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully; and
(E)
Fifth, that the fact pertained to a matter within the
jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the
(2) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.
(A) A “material” fact or matter is one that has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision of [insert name of government entity].
(B) The term “using a trick, scheme, or device” means acting in a way intended to deceive others.
(C) An act is done “knowingly and willfully” if it is done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or some other innocent reason.
(D)
A matter is “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
(3)
[It is not necessary that the government prove [that the defendant knew the
matter was within the jurisdiction of the
(4) If you are convinced that the government has proved all of the elements, say so by returning a guilty verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt about any one of the elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this charge.
Use Note
The court may need to modify the language if the charge is based on aiding and abetting or causing under 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Brackets indicate options for the court.
The provisions of paragraph (3) should be used only if relevant.
Committee Commentary Instruction 13.01
(current through December 31, 2007)
This instruction covers violations of § 1001 listed in subsection (a)(1) which prohibits falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact.
Paragraph
(1), which sets out the five elements for violating § 1001 by concealment, is
based on
The
definition of “material” in paragraph (2)(A) is based
on
For the phrase “using a trick, scheme, or device” in paragraph (2)(B), neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has stated a definition. In the absence of specific authority, the definition in paragraph (2)(B) is based on Tenth Circuit Instruction 2.46.
As
to the definition of “knowingly and willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), no Supreme
Court or Sixth Circuit cases define either of these terms in the context of §
1001. In the absence of specific authority, the Committee relied on the
definition of knowingly given in
For
the term “willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), aside from the discussion of
knowledge of federal jurisdiction in Yermian,
supra, neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has defined the term
in the context of § 1001. In the absence of such authority, the Committee
adopted the approach taken in a plurality of the circuit courts of appeals.
Other circuits have concluded that “willfully” in § 1001 does not require the
defendant to have specific knowledge that his conduct is criminal. See
The
definition of “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
Paragraph (3) lists some but not all items the government is not required to prove. Many pattern instructions include such a provision. These provisions should be used only if relevant. The bracketed provision stating that the government need not prove the defendant knew the matter was within the jurisdiction of the federal government is based on United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984) and United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Lewis, 587 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1978)). The bracketed provision stating that the false statement need not be made directly to, or even received by, the United States government is based on United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Intent
and knowledge need not be proved directly. Pattern Instruction 2.08 Inferring
Required Mental State states this principle and should be given in appropriate
cases. In addition, Pattern Instruction 2.09 Deliberate Ignorance explains one
approach to proving knowledge under § 1001. See, e.g.,
13.02 MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT IN A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))
(1)
The defendant is charged with the offense of making a false [statement]
[representation] in a matter within the jurisdiction of the
(A) First, that the defendant made a [statement] [representation];
(B) Second, that the statement was [false] [fictitious] [fraudulent];
(C) Third, that the [statement] [representation] was material;
(D) Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully; and
(E)
Fifth, that the statement pertained to a matter within
the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the
(2) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.
(A) A statement is “false” or “fictitious” if it was untrue when it was made, and the defendant knew it was untrue at that time. A statement is “fraudulent” if it was untrue when it was made, the defendant knew it was untrue at that time, and the defendant intended to deceive.
(B) A “material” statement or representation is one that has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision of [insert name of government entity].
(C) An act is done “knowingly and willfully” if it is done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or some other innocent reason.
(D)
A matter is “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
(3)
[It is not necessary that the government prove [that the defendant knew the
matter was within the jurisdiction of the
(4) If you are convinced that the government has proved all of the elements, say so by returning a guilty verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt about any one of the elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this charge.
Use Note
The court may need to modify the language if the charge is based on aiding and abetting or causing under 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Brackets indicate options for the court.
The provisions of paragraph (3) should be used only if relevant.
Committee Commentary Instruction 13.02
(current through December 31, 2007)
This
instruction covers violations of § 1001 listed in subsection (a)(2) based on making a false statement to the
Paragraph
(1), which characterizes the false statement violation of § 1001 as having five
elements, is based on
In paragraph (2)(A), the definitions of false, fictitious and fraudulent are, in the absence of Sixth Circuit authority, based on the Seventh Circuit Pattern Instructions for § 1001. The definition of “false or fictitious” is substantially verbatim from the Seventh Circuit definition. The definition of “fraudulent” is based on the Seventh Circuit instruction; the Sixth Circuit implicitly approved the language in United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 484 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Shah, 44 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995)).
The
definition of “material” in paragraph (2)(B) is based
on
As
to the definition of “knowingly and willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), no Supreme
Court or Sixth Circuit cases define either of these terms in the context of §
1001. In the absence of specific authority, the Committee relied on the
definition of knowingly given in
For
the term “willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), aside from the discussion of
knowledge of federal jurisdiction in Yermian,
supra, neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has defined the term
in the context of § 1001. In the absence of such authority, the Committee
adopted the approach taken in a plurality of the circuit courts of appeals.
Other circuits have concluded that “willfully” in § 1001 does not require the
defendant to have specific knowledge that his conduct is criminal. See
The
definition of “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
Paragraph (3) lists some but not all items the government is not required to prove. Many pattern instructions include such a provision. These provisions should be used only if relevant. The bracketed provision stating that the government need not prove the defendant knew the matter was within the jurisdiction of the federal government is based on United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984) and United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Lewis, 587 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1978)). The bracketed provision stating that the false statement need not be made directly to, or even received by, the United States government is based on United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989)).
Sixth
Circuit cases on falsity indicate that a conviction cannot be based on an
ambiguous question where the response is not false on its face and may be
literally and factually correct.
Oral
and written statements are treated the same under § 1001.
Intent
and knowledge need not be proved directly. Pattern Instruction 2.08 Inferring
Required Mental State states this principle and should be given in appropriate
cases. In addition, Pattern Instruction 2.09 Deliberate Ignorance explains one
approach to proving knowledge under § 1001. See, e.g.,
13.03 MAKING OR USING A FALSE WRITING IN A MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3))
(1)
The defendant is charged with the offense of making or using a false writing or
document in a matter within the jurisdiction of the
(A) First, that the defendant [made] [used] a false [writing] [document];
(B) Second, that the [writing] [document] contained a [statement] [entry] that was [false] [fictitious] [fraudulent];
(C) Third, that the [statement] [entry] was material;
(D) Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully; and
(E)
Fifth, that the [writing] [document] pertained to a matter within the jurisdiction
of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the
(2) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.
(A) A statement is “false” or “fictitious” if it was untrue when it was made, and the defendant knew it was untrue at that time. A statement is “fraudulent” if it was untrue when it was made, the defendant knew it was untrue at that time, and the defendant intended to deceive.
(B) A “material” statement or entry is one that has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a decision of [insert name of government entity].
(C) An act is done “knowingly and willfully” if it is done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or some other innocent reason.
(D)
A matter is “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
(3)
[It is not necessary that the government prove [that the defendant knew the
matter was within the jurisdiction of the
(4) If you are convinced that the government has proved all of the elements, say so by returning a guilty verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt about any one of the elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this charge.
Use Note
The court may need to modify the language if the charge is based on aiding and abetting or causing under 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Brackets indicate options for the court.
The provisions of paragraph (3) should be used only if relevant.
Committee Commentary Instruction 13.03
(current through December 31, 2007)
This instruction covers violations of § 1001 listed in subsection (a)(3) which prohibits making or using a false writing or document within the jurisdiction of the United States government.
In
Paragraph (1), the five elements of the false writing offense are based on
United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United
States v. Raithatha, 385 F.3d 1013, 1022 (6th Cir.
2004), vacated on other grounds, 543 U.S. 1136 (2005)). Some of the
language used in White was modified to reflect the language of the
statute more completely. In paragraph (1)(E), the term
“pertained to” is drawn from
In paragraph (2)(A), the definitions of false, fictitious and fraudulent are, in the absence of Sixth Circuit authority, based on the Seventh Circuit Pattern Instructions for § 1001. The definition of “false or fictitious” is substantially verbatim from the Seventh Circuit definition. The definition of “fraudulent” is based on the Seventh Circuit instruction; the Sixth Circuit implicitly approved the language in United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 484 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Shah, 44 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995)).
The
definition of “material” in paragraph (2)(B) is based
on
As
to the definition of “knowingly and willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), no Supreme
Court or Sixth Circuit cases define either of these terms in the context of §
1001. In the absence of specific authority, the Committee relied on the
definition of knowingly given in
For
the term “willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), aside from the discussion of
knowledge of federal jurisdiction in Yermian,
supra, neither the Supreme Court nor the Sixth Circuit has defined the term
in the context of § 1001. In the absence of such authority, the Committee
adopted the approach taken in a plurality of the circuit courts of appeals.
Other circuits have concluded that “willfully” in § 1001 does not require the
defendant to have specific knowledge that his conduct is criminal. See
The
definition of “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative]
[judicial] branch of the
Paragraph (3) lists some but not all items the government is not required to prove. Many pattern instructions include such a provision. These provisions should be used only if relevant.
The bracketed provision stating that the government need not prove the defendant knew the matter was within the jurisdiction of the federal government is based on United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984) and United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 1989) citing United States v. Lewis, 587 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1978). The bracketed provision stating that the false statement need not be made directly to, or even received by, the United States government is based on United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1998) quoting United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989).
Oral
and written statements are treated the same under § 1001.
Sixth
Circuit cases on falsity indicate that a conviction cannot be based on an
ambiguous question where the response is not false on its face and may be
literally and factually correct.
Intent
and knowledge need not be proved directly. Pattern Instruction 2.08 Inferring
Required Mental State states this principle and should be given in appropriate
cases. In addition, Pattern Instruction 2.09 Deliberate Ignorance explains one
approach to proving knowledge under § 1001. See, e.g.,
6CA Home || Jury Instructions Home || Previous || Next
|
|
||
|
|
To download this section click on the desired file type: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|