335 U.S. 469, 476 (1948). However, the Court has never held that the v. United States, jury must be instructed that character evidence may raise a reasonable doubt, although includes dictum to that effect. 355 U.S. at 476. The views of the various Michelson circuits range from the position that the defendant is entitled to the instruction to the view that the instruction is improper. 487 U.S. 1224 (1988) See Spangler v. United States, (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (summarizing division of authority). In 838 F.2d 85 (3d Cir.), 487 U.S. 1224 (1988), the United States v. Spangler, cert. denied, Third Circuit held that the trial court may decline to give the instruction “standing alone” provided the court gives an instruction that the attention to its duty to take “calls jury’s character evidence into account with all of the other evidence in deciding whether the government has proved its charge beyond a reasonable at 87. Id. doubt.” Most recently, the Third Circuit addressed the character evidence instruction in a non-precedential opinion, 104 F. 241 (3d Cir. United States v. Long Fei Lin, App’x. 2004). The court stated that is dispositive on the question of the Spangler “standing instruction and held that the following instruction, which the alone” “largely mirrored” instruction approved in was not clearly erroneous: Spangler, You have heard testimony that a defendant has a good reputation in his community for being honest and law-abiding. You may consider such evidence, along with all other evidence in the case, in reaching your verdict. Evaluate such character evidence, along with all of the other evidence in this case, in deciding whether the government has proved the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. 351 F. 649, 651 (3d Cir. 2009) See also United States v. Morrow, App’x. (nonprecedential) (holding defendant not entitled to instruction that character evidence alone was sufficient to create reasonable doubt). (Revised 11/2010)
v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 476 (1948). However, the Court has never held that the jury must be instructed that character evidence may raise a reasonable doubt, although Michelson includes dictum to that effect. 355 U.S. at 476. The views of the various circuits range from the position that the defendant is entitled to the instruction to the view that the instruction is improper. See Spangler v. United States, 487 U.S. 1224 (1988) (White, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (summarizing division of authority). In United States v. Spangler, 838 F.2d 85 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1224 (1988), the Third Circuit held that the trial court may decline to give the “standing alone” instruction provided the court gives an instruction that “calls the jury’s attention to its duty to take character evidence into account with all of the other evidence in deciding whether the government has proved its charge beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 87. Most recently, the Third Circuit addressed the character evidence instruction in a non-precedential opinion, United States v. Long Fei Lin, 104 F. App’x. 241 (3d Cir. 2004). The court stated that Spangler is dispositive on the question of the “standing alone” instruction and held that the following instruction, which “largely mirrored” the instruction approved in Spangler, was not clearly erroneous: You have heard testimony that a defendant has a good reputation in his community for being honest and law-abiding. You may consider such evidence, along with all other evidence in the case, in reaching your verdict. Evaluate such character evidence, along with all of the other evidence in this case, in deciding whether the government has proved the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. See also United States v. Morrow, 351 F. App’x. 649, 651 (3d Cir. 2009) (nonprecedential) (holding defendant not entitled to instruction that character evidence alone was sufficient to create reasonable doubt). (Revised 11/2010)
2014%20Chapter%204%20final.docx