US-CA3 · jury_instructions
3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 4.14
Specific Investigation Techniques Not Required
During the trial you heard testimony of witnesses and argument by
counsel that the government did not use specific investigative techniques such
as (mention omitted techniques that have been addressed in testimony or
argument; e.g., fingerprint analysis, DNA analysis, the use of recording devices).
You may consider these facts in deciding whether the government has met its
burden of proof, because as I told you, you should look to all of the evidence
or lack of evidence in deciding whether the defendant is guilty. However,
there is no legal requirement that the government use any of these specific
investigative techniques or all possible techniques to prove its case. There is
no requirement to (mention omitted techniques; e.g., attempt to take fingerprints
or offer fingerprint evidence, gather DNA evidence or offer DNA analysis, or use
recording devices or offer recordings in evidence).
Your concern, as I have said, is to determine whether or not the
evidence admitted in this trial proves the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Provenance
- Source
- ca3.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-19
- Edition
- 2026-08-19
- Content hash
247f3f216611bfbd221d523601a5af9907ded3db5d1f1585d81faef267c578f7
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.