U.S. v. Grady

In prosecution on arson charges stemming from defendant’s setting fire to Planned Parenthood clinic, Dist. Ct. did not err in giving instruction to jury that defined term “maliciously” as requiring proof that defendant acted intentionally or with deliberate disregard of likelihood that damage or injury would result from setting fire at said clinic, since said instruction allowed jury to properly weigh defendant’s intent in starting fire. Moreover, defendant’s proffered instruction that required jury to find that fire was set “without just cause or reason,” was properly rejected where defendant failed to cite any cognizable legal justification for starting fire at clinic.