The I2G Court Instructed the Jury to Convict

by | Sep 30, 2024 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

After deliberation, the i2g jury asked the Court whether they could consider all the “purchases” or only theone within the statute of limitations. Because the instructions referred to purchases as “securities” and distributors as “victim-investors,” the Court’s affirmation that a “purchase” occurred within the statute of limitations instructed the jury to convict.

The government argued that if the court made a mistake in responding to a jury question, it should be considered in the context of “the instructions as a “whole.” (United States v. Khalil, 279 F.3d 358, 367 (6th Cir. 2002)). This acknowledges the error in the court’s affirmation that a “purchase” occurred during the “statute of limitations” because instructions “as a whole” are needed to correct the error. However, the instructions “as a whole” had many errors, weakening the argument and supporting Hosseinipour.

Victim Investors

The instructions referred to distributors as “victim investors” and their product purchases as “securities,” assuming a crime occurred. The government argues that the wording of the jury question implied that the jury had already concluded that a “securities” purchase occurred. This is because written and oral instructions presented it as such. To make matters worse, the list of “victim investor’s securities purchases” was based on hearsay, consisting of non-testifying witnesses outside the statute of limitations.

“For Count 13,…the Government must prove…that a conspiracy member committed an overt act to advance or help the conspiracy to commit securities fraud with respect to the sale of the following securities.” 298 R.554, #5263. 299 R.554, #5263-64.

Considered “as a whole,” the instructional errors magnified the harm from other erroneous instructions that defined a pyramid scheme as an automatic “mail fraud,” vaguely described “pyramid scheme” and “securities” in a way that could apply to any MLM, failed to require criminal intent, denied an affirmative defense, and did not provide clarifying instructions to “distinguish between pyramid schemes and legitimate MLMs.”

Moreover, the jury was not provided with guard rails to weigh the evidence in favor of innocence; instead, they were instructed to convict.

0 Comments

  1. Online_ahmt
    Online_ahmt on December 21, 2024 at 11:27 pm
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Find Your Perfect Match: Online Schools in New Mexico, Take Your Education to the Next Level with Online Schools in New Mexico, Achieve Your Academic Goals with Online Schools in New Mexico, Unlock Your Potential with Online Schools in New Mexico, Maximize Your Learning Potential with Online Schools in New Mexico, Join the Online Learning Community in New Mexico, Choose Your Path to Success with Online Schools in New Mexico, Take Control of Your Education with Online Schools in New Mexico, Experience a New Way of Learning with Online Schools in New Mexico, Join the Online Education Revolution in New Mexico
    Online Schools in New Mexico http://www.onlineschoolnm3.com .

    Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *