Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; December 30, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Faron Wade Jones appeals his convictions for abusive sexual contact and attempted sexual abuse. He argues that the district court erred by not providing the jury with written instructions. The court affirmed the decision, noting the defense's request for written instructions was denied as it is not standard practice and the judge had previously consulted with counsel for any necessary clarifications.
Jones was arrested on June 3, 2000, for molesting an unconscious woman, facing charges under 18 U.S.C. 1153 and 2244(a)(2) for abusive sexual contact, and 18 U.S.C. 2242(2) for attempted sexual abuse. The prosecution's case included multiple eyewitness testimonies and Jones’ own admissions.
During jury deliberations, the jury requested clarification on the charges, prompting the judge to provide oral instructions, which the defense argued was inadequate due to concerns about jurors missing key information. Despite these concerns, the court maintained that the jury had sufficient understanding and denied the request for written instructions.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviews the district court’s decision not to provide written instructions for abuse of discretion, considering factors such as the complexity of the issues and the jury's understanding. The circuit court aligned with other circuits in allowing the trial judge to assess the jury's comprehension based on the instructions given, juror observations, and any inquiries during deliberations.
The district court acted within its discretion by providing oral rather than written jury instructions, despite initial juror confusion about the charges. Jones contended that the absence of written instructions led jurors to focus unduly on parts of the oral instructions or their own notes. However, the Fifth Circuit has noted that written instructions can lead to fragmentary analysis of the charge rather than a holistic understanding. The court has established that while written instructions are becoming more common, they are not mandatory. In this case, the district court made a considered decision based on the case's simplicity, the jurors' comprehension, and the lack of objections from Jones regarding the oral instructions. Consequently, the court's decision was affirmed, with no abuse of discretion found. The excerpt also outlines relevant statutes under 18 U.S.C. 2242 and 2244(a) regarding sexual acts and sexual contact, emphasizing their definitions and penalties. Other circuit courts have similarly reviewed the provision of written instructions for an abuse of discretion.
