U.S. v. Fadden

In prosecution on bankruptcy fraud charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in rejecting defendant’s proposed theory-of-defense instruction under circumstances where defendant was charged with failure to report in certain bankruptcy pleadings that he had interest in real estate and in proceeds of life insurance policies. While last sentence of proposed instruction that informed jury that it must acquit defendant if it found that his omissions were not made with intent to deceive was accurate statement of law, said sentence did not add any new information beyond Dist. Ct.’s other instructions to jury. Moreover, remaining portion of proposed instruction that informed jury that defendant's omissions were part of his continued failure to abide by particulars demanded in bankruptcy filings, which was inconsistent with intent to deceive, was misstatement of law, and thus was properly rejected.