DRAFT — Proposed Jury Instructions and First Circuit Source Guide

United States v. Carrer-Rivera, et al. — Gabriel Garcia

Criminal No. 3:25-cr-00240-FAB

Prepared November 5, 2026. FOR COUNSEL REVIEW — NOT A COURT-APPROVED CHARGE.

These are proposed adaptations, not a verbatim reproduction of model instructions. The operative indictment and remaining counts have not been authenticated. Bracketed fields must be completed; optional instructions must be supported by the evidence and the court's rulings. This is a targeted defense submission, not a complete trial charge.

Official model source

Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the First Circuit — District of Maine edition, updated December 8, 2023.

Relevant references: 3.02 (burden), 3.03 (silence), 3.09 (separate defendants), 2.08 (cooperating witnesses), 2.09 (recordings/transcripts), 2.15–2.17 (mental state), 4.18.371(1) (conspiracy), 4.18.641, 4.18.1341, 4.18.1343, and 4.18.1349. These models require tailoring and are not a substitute for current controlling law. The Puerto Rico court's February 2024 listing was located, but its linked PDF returned an error during this review; it is not represented as examined.

1. Individual consideration — proposed language

Consider Gabriel Garcia separately from every other defendant, and decide each count against him separately. A verdict concerning someone else does not determine his verdict. Consider only evidence you are permitted to use against him, for the purpose I have allowed. The government must prove each required element beyond a reasonable doubt; Garcia has no burden to establish innocence.

Authority: Zafiro, 506 U.S. at 540–41; Chisholm, slip op. pp. 21–23. Counsel should coordinate this language with the court's full burden-of-proof instruction.

2. Conspiracy to commit an offense — provisional Count One

To convict on this count, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that two or more persons agreed to commit [the precise offense charged]; Garcia knowingly and voluntarily joined that agreement intending to advance its unlawful purpose; and at least one conspirator committed an act to advance the agreement during the charged period. An agreement can be proved from circumstances; it need not be written. The act need not itself be unlawful. Association or family relationship alone is not proof of knowing participation.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counsel note: Docket 114 describes an offense-object conspiracy involving § 641. Do not silently substitute a defraud-clause theory or use the model for that different theory without checking Docket 3. Define the precise object offense and any required jury findings.

3. Government-money offense as the conspiracy object

The alleged object is [the charged theft/embezzlement/knowing-conversion theory]. The government must establish that the money or property was property of the United States or its agency and that the contemplated conduct involved the unlawful taking or knowing conversion described in the charge, with the required criminal intent. A benefits award or an administrative disagreement does not, standing alone, establish that criminal intent. In evaluating conspiracy, decide the required agreement and intent; do not require completion of the object offense merely because it is the conspiracy's objective.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Counsel note: This paragraph is not a complete standalone § 641 substantive charge. Select the actual statutory theory, define its intent requirements, and address the applicable value finding if required. Do not assume a separate § 641 count against Garcia from the conspiracy description.

4. Mail fraud — apply only to a verified remaining count

For Count [number], the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia knowingly participated in a scheme to obtain money or property by material false representations or promises, acted with intent to defraud, and used or caused the use of the mails or a qualifying carrier in furtherance of that scheme as charged. Identify the specific mailing and decide its connection to the scheme. Receipt of a letter alone does not establish all these elements.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 1341; materiality and property guidance in Instruction 6 below. Counsel must tailor causation, the particular mailing/carrier, dates, and any secondary-liability theory. This draft does not authenticate the audit's reference to a January 8, 2025 letter or assign it a final count number.

5. Wire fraud — apply only to a verified remaining count

For Count [number], the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia knowingly participated in a scheme to obtain money or property through material false representations or promises, acted with intent to defraud, and used or caused an interstate or foreign wire communication in furtherance of the scheme as charged. Decide each alleged transmission separately. Do not infer the required interstate or foreign character solely because a telephone or computer was involved.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Counsel must insert the transmission and applicable causation instruction. The government need not establish personal operation of the device if a legally sufficient causation theory is proved; any aiding-and-abetting or conspirator liability must be separately and correctly instructed.

6. Materiality and property — proposed clarification

A misrepresentation is material when it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the relevant decision. The alleged scheme must concern obtaining money or property, not merely violating a rule. But do not require proof of net economic loss as an additional element of a fraudulent-inducement wire-fraud theory. The absence of such loss does not excuse proof of material deception and fraudulent intent.

Authority: Kousisis v. United States, No. 23-909 (May 22, 2025). Counsel note: An argument that the claimant had some legitimate entitlement must be tested against the exact alleged deception, benefit sought, and intent; it is not an automatic defense or an automatic admission of fraud.

7. Fraud conspiracy — provisional Count Two

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the agreement charged existed between at least two persons to commit [mail fraud / wire fraud / the charged objects] and that Garcia knowingly and voluntarily joined it with the intent to advance its unlawful purpose. An agreement to obtain legitimate assistance is not, by itself, an agreement to commit fraud. Apply the definitions of the charged fraud objects, not a different uncharged agreement.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. § 1349.

Overt-act issue for the charge conference: Do not mechanically import or omit the § 371 overt-act language. The retrieved model commentary predates recent developments. United States v. Omoruyi, Nos. 23-1956 et al. (1st Cir. July 15, 2026), discusses § 1349 bank-fraud conspiracy with an overt-act formulation and addresses instructions using it. Counsel should examine the decision and later authorities for the precise issue here. This draft proposes preserving a defense request for an overt-act requirement, subject to the court's ruling, rather than asserting a categorical absence of that requirement.

Conditional defense-requested sentence: You must also find that at least one conspirator committed an overt act during the charged period to advance the conspiracy.

Omoruyi, official opinion, pp. 7–8, 12, 15–19. This is a bank-fraud case, not a factual determination concerning Garcia. Counsel must also address object unanimity and the verdict form if multiple objects remain charged.

8. Additional model requests requiring case-specific selection

Request the applicable models on presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, the right not to testify, limited-purpose evidence, cooperating witnesses, and recordings/translations. Do not tell jurors automatically that an English transcript is merely an aid: the court must determine its evidentiary status, particularly for Spanish-language recordings. Identify the approved translation and resolve disputed speakers and wording before proposing the final charge.

Any willful-blindness, multiple-conspiracies, good-faith, aiding-and-abetting, Pinkerton, or entrapment instruction needs its own evidentiary and legal foundation. None is automatically warranted by this audit. No instruction should tell the jury that an audit finding is an established fact.

Counsel's submission checklist

No jury instructions have been submitted to the court. These proposals require licensed defense counsel's review and completion.