Filed: Aug. 05, 1997
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.and Boudin, Circuit Judge.*Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.legal principles conveyed by the judge to the jurors.defendant requested.See, e.g., United , States v. DeStefano, 59 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.United States v. Cintolo, 818 F.2d 980, 1004 (1st Cir.
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
No. 97-1080
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM CHEN,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Hill,* Senior Circuit Judge,
and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
Robert L. Sheketoff
, with whom
Sheketoff & Homan
was on brief,
for appellant.
Kevin P. McGrath
, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
Donald
K.
Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
appellee.
August 5, 1997
*Of the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Per
Curiam. Having read the parties' briefs, listened
carefully to the arguments of distinguished counsel, perused the
trial transcript, and scrutinized the district court's charge to
the jury, we are persuaded that the instructions adequately covered
the gist of the defendant's requests. To be sure, the precise
tenor of jury instructions will vary from judge to judge, and the
instructions in this instance were not quite what the defendant
wanted in certain respects. Still, these discrepancies constituted
variations in shading only, and did not affect the substance of the
legal principles conveyed by the judge to the jurors. Indeed, the
charge as given was in some ways more favorable than that which the
defendant requested.
We need go no further: it is axiomatic in this circuit,
as elsewhere, that the trial judge may put legal principles into
his or her own words, without any obligation to parrot language
that the defendant prefers, as long as the instructions as given
cover the substance of the applicable law in an even-handed manner.
See, e.g., United
States v. DeStefano,
59 F.3d 1, 2-3 (1st Cir.
1995);
United States
v.
McGill,
953 F.2d 10, 12-13 (1st Cir. 1992);
United States v. Cintolo,
818 F.2d 980, 1004 (1st Cir. 1987).
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
3