The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Russo, 74 F.3d 1383 (2nd Cir. 1996):
The appellants argue that the district court, in declining to give two of their proposed instructions, failed to instruct the jury adequately on their defense to the short sales charge. The absence of the instructions, appellants claim, prevented a balanced presentation of the defense's theory of the case. We review the propriety of the district court's instructions de novo. United States v. Dove, 916 F.2d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1990).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.