Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1399

Filed 10/07/16

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF

OREGON
UNITED STATES

)
)

v.

)
)

SHAWNA COX

Defendant Shawna Coxs Objections to Proposed jury

instructions
DEFENDANT SHAWNA COX hereby renews and incorporates the Defendants
previous challenges to the Courts jury instructions, and adds the following
objections:
1. Pages-17-18 Elements of Count One... should be modified as First,
beginning on or about November 5, 2015, and continuing . . . to prevent
an officer or officers of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
and/or Bureau of Land Management from discharging the duties of his
or her office at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge by force,
intimidation, or threat;
2. Page 19 states that For purposes of Count One, the term officer of the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau of Land
Management means any person who is employed either full-time or
part-time by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or Bureau of
Land Management at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
The language should be changed to add: and that performs their duties at
the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.
3. The Right to Possess . . . instruction on pages 20-21 should be modified to
state: Under the Second Amendment . . . . Nevertheless, . . . to prevent
an officer of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and/or Bureau
of Land Management at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge from

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1399

Filed 10/07/16

Page 2 of 4

discharging the duties of his or her office by force, intimidation, or

threats
4. ADDITIONALLY, Defendant objects to language which approves and/or
exalts the use of undercover deception and informants by the United States
government. Nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights supports such
a statement of law. The COURTS FIRST DRAFT FINAL JURY
INSTRUCTIONS (OCTOBER 4, 2016) boldly offers an extreme progovernment proclamation:
Governments Use of Undercover Agents and Informants
You have heard testimony that one or more informants may have been
involved in the governments investigation in this case. In order to investigate
criminal activities, law enforcement officials may engage in stealth and
deception, such as using informants who may assume the roles of members in
an alleged conspiracy.
(page 13).
Constitutional law has never embraced deceptive practices by government
agents at the wholesale level suggested by this proposed instruction. Indeed,
courts have overwhelmingly condemned such loathsome practices. At the
foundation of our civil liberties, wrote Justice Brandeis, lies the principle that
denies to government officials an exceptional position before the law and which
subjects them to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen."
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
(adding that the right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and right
most valued by civilized man.).
Upon its plain face, the Courts proposed language violates the basic
principle that parties before the courts are to be equals in an adversarial system.
The tenor of the instruction suggests that the Government may freely commit acts
of fraud and deception that would subject the Defendants to prosecution and
punishment. Constitutional standards grounded in the Equal Protection Clause, the
Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and Article III itself
all provide support for the mandate of symmetry and equality in the treatment of
parties.
Additionally, the Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches
and seizures, the Ninth Amendments protection of rights retained by the people,

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1399

Filed 10/07/16

Page 3 of 4

and the other penumbras of rights enshrined under the Fourteenth Amendment all
forbid such vile, dark activities on the part of Government.
The Constitutions Framers firmly rejected the lopsided inquisitorial court
procedures that accompanied the notorious British Star Chamber court of the
seventeenth century. Dozens of recorded statements by the Constitutions Framers
spoke of an intent to ensure that Americans are free of such governmental
corruption.
Federal law is filled with provisions which harshly penalize deceptive
practices. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 241 (criminalizing two or more persons who go
in disguise on the highway to deny rights; 18 U.S.C. 1622, Subornation of
perjury (Whoever procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation
of perjury, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both); 18 U.S.C. 1512 (Tampering with a witness, victim, or an
informant). These provisions generally apply to government as well as
nongovernment actors. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 1512(k) (Whoever conspires to
commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as
those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the
conspiracy).
THEREFORE, the Defendant prays that the proposed instruction (1) be
eliminated, or (2) be amended to state:
Governments Use of Undercover Agents and Informants
You have heard testimony that one or more informants may have been
involved in the governments investigation in this case. Law enforcement
officials who engage in such stealth and deception, and the informants and
undercover agents who engage in the use of stealth, lies or deception, should
merit harsh scrutiny.
5. ADDITIONALLY, the Defendant objects to the proposed instruction at the
bottom of page 27 that Upon your return to the jury room, your first
duty is to elect one member of the jury as your Presiding juror.
The jury is a sui juris institution. The Defendant knows of no authority for
the proposition that a court may dictate the order of proceedings within the jury
room. Additionally, the word elect seems to suggest a court-imposed system of
determination upon the jury. (Would the Court like to dictate forms of balloting,

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR

Document 1399

Filed 10/07/16

Page 4 of 4

voting or nominating? Should the vote be by simple majority? Plurality? Secret

ballot or show of hands?)
The term Presiding Juror also seems alien to constitutional law. Is this
term intended to replace the customary term jury foreman?
The Courts proposed jury instruction seems to seek to further encroach on
the constitutional province of the jury.
The language should state: At some point in your deliberations, you
should designate one member of the jury as your jury foreperson or
spokesperson.
Dated this 7th day of October, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/S/ Shawna Cox
Pro Se Defendant