U.S. v. Davis

In prosecution on bank robbery and witness intimidation charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in instructing jury that jury “must,” as opposed to “should,” find defendant guilty of charged offense if govt. proved defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Defendant’s proposed instruction using term “should” was akin to improperly giving nullification instruction. Moreover, jury would have reached same verdict regardless of whether instruction contained either “must” or “should,” since both terms convey imperative when used to instruct jury on whether to convict defendant. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that jury instruction must reflect theoretical availability of jury nullification.