6th Cir. Pattern Crim. Jury Instr. 13.02

(1) The defendant is charged with making a false [statement] [representation] in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States government. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, you must find that the government has proved each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(A) First, that the defendant made a [statement] [representation];

(B) Second, that the statement was [false] [fictitious] [fraudulent];

(C) Third, that the [statement] [representation] was material;

(D) Fourth, that the defendant acted knowingly and willfully; and

(E) Fifth, that the statement pertained to a matter within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the United States government.

(2) Now I will give you more detailed instructions on some of these terms.

(A) A statement is “false” or “fictitious” if it was untrue when it was made, and the defendant knew it was untrue at that time. A statement is “fraudulent” if it was untrue when it was made, the defendant knew it was untrue at that time, and the defendant intended to deceive.

(B) A “material” statement or representation is one that has the natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing a [decision] [function] of [insert name of government entity].

(C) A defendant acts “knowingly and willfully” if the defendant knows that his statement is [false] [fictitious] [fraudulent] and knows that his conduct is unlawful. It is not necessary for the government to prove that the defendant was aware of the specific provision of the law that he is charged with violating.

(D) A matter is “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the United States government” if [insert name of government entity] has the power to exercise authority in that matter.

(3) [It is not necessary that the government prove [that the defendant knew the matter was within the jurisdiction of the United States government] [that the statements were made directly to, or even received by, the United States government]].

(4) If you are convinced that the government has proved all of the elements, say so by returning a guilty verdict on this charge. If you have a reasonable doubt about any one of the elements, then you must find the defendant not guilty of this charge.

Use Note

The court may need to modify the language if the charge is based on aiding and abetting or causing under 18 U.S.C. § 2.

Brackets indicate options for the court. Brackets with italics are notes to the court.

The provisions of paragraph (3) should be used only if relevant.

Committee Commentary Instruction 13.02

(current through May 29, 2026)

This instruction covers violations of § 1001 listed in subsection (a)(2) based on making a false statement to the United States government.

Paragraph (1), which characterizes the false statement violation of § 1001 as having five elements, is supported by United States v. Hills, 27 F.4th 1155, 1186 (6th Cir. 2022) (recounting five elements and citing Inst. 13.02 with approval). See also United States v. Geisen, 612 F.3d 471, 489 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1998); and United States v. Rogers, 118 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. Steele, 933 F.2d 1313, 1318-1319 (6th Cir. 1991) (en banc)). The Sixth Circuit has occasionally used a different formulation of the five elements. See, e.g., United States v. Gatewood, 173 F.3d 983, 986 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Hixon, 987 F.2d 1261, 1266 (6th Cir. 1993)). The Committee chose the formulation based on Hills and Steele because it is closer to the statutory language. In paragraph (1)(E), the phrase “the statement pertained to” is from Steele, supra at 1319, and the phrase “a matter within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of” the United States government is based on the language of § 1001(a).

In paragraph (2)(A), the definitions of false, fictitious and fraudulent are, in the absence of Sixth Circuit authority, based on the Seventh Circuit Pattern Instructions for § 1001. The definition of “false or fictitious” is substantially verbatim from the Seventh Circuit definition.

The definition of “fraudulent” is based on the Seventh Circuit instruction; the Sixth Circuit implicitly approved the language in United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 484 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Shah, 44 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1995)).

The basic definition of “material” in paragraph (2)(B) is based on United States v. White, 270 F.3d 356, 365 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 588 (6th Cir. 1998)). The bracketed terms “decision” and “function” are drawn from United States v. Dedhia, 134 F.3d 802, 806 (6th Cir. 1998). The term “function” may be appropriate, for example, when the defendant is charged with making a false statement to a federal law enforcement official conducting an investigation. The use of brackets for the name of the government entity is based on Tenth Circuit Pattern Instruction Inst. 2.46.

As to the definition of “knowingly” in paragraph (2)(C), no Supreme Court or Sixth

Circuit cases define this term in the context of § 1001. In the absence of specific authority, the Committee relied on the definition of knowingly given in United States v. McGuire, 744 F.2d 1197, 1201 (6th Cir. 1984) (prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1005 for making a false entry in a bank report). Beyond the general definition of knowingly, case law on § 1001 does establish particular elements to which the term “knowingly” applies. The government must prove that the defendant knew the statement was false. United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 484 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Arnous, 122 F.3d 321, 322-23 (6th Cir. 1997). The government need not prove that the defendant made the statement with knowledge of federal agency jurisdiction. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984).

For the term “willfully” in paragraph (2)(C), aside from the discussion of knowledge of federal jurisdiction in Yermian, supra, the Supreme Court has not defined the term in the context of § 1001. While considering the sufficiency of the evidence under Rule 29, the Sixth Circuit applied a standard indicating that “willfully” for § 1001 requires the government to prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. United States v. Emmons, 8 F.4th 454, 477-479 (6th Cir. 2021), citing Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-192, 118 S.Ct. 1939, 141 L.Ed.2d 197 (1998). As background, the district court in Emmons instructed the jury as follows:

An act is done “knowingly and willfully” if the Defendant knew that he was causing the . . . Campaign to file a statement that was false, fictitious, or fraudulent, and not because of mistake or some other innocent reason.

It is not necessary for the Government to prove that the Defendant was aware of the specific provision of the law that he is charged with violating. Rather, it is sufficient for the Defendant to act knowing that some part of his course of conduct is unlawful, even if he does not know precisely which law or regulation makes it so.

United State v. Lundergan, Criminal No. 5:18-cr-00106-GFVT-MAS, jury instructions on Making a False Statement in a Matter within the Jurisdiction of the United States Government, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), Nos. 20-5869, 20-5890. In the instruction, the two sentences in the second paragraph are used in reverse order.

The definition of “within the jurisdiction of the [executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch of the United States government” in paragraph (2)(D) is based on United States v. Rodgers, 466 U.S. 475 (1984). The Court explained, “A department or agency has jurisdiction . . . when it has the power to exercise authority in a particular situation. . . . [T]he phrase ‘within the jurisdiction’ merely differentiates the official, authorized functions of an agency or department from matters peripheral to the business of that body.” Id. at 479 (citation omitted). See also United States v.

Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989) (quoting this definition from Rodgers). The Sixth Circuit has further explained that, “‘[W]hen the federal agency has power to exercise its authority, even if the federal agency does not have complete control over the matter,’ the matter is within the agency’s jurisdiction.” United States v. Grenier, 513 F.3d 632, 638 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Shafer, 199 F.3d 826, 829 (6th Cir. 1999)). The term “[executive] [legislative] [judicial] branch” was substituted for the term “department or agency” to reflect the

statutory amendment in 1996.

Paragraph (3) lists some but not all items the government is not required to prove. Many pattern instructions include such a provision. These provisions should be used only if

relevant. The bracketed provision stating that the government need not prove the defendant knew the matter was within the jurisdiction of the federal government is based on United States v.

Yermian, 468 U.S. 63 (1984) and United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 323 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Lewis, 587 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1978)). The bracketed provision stating that the false statement need not be made directly to, or even received by, the United States

government is based on United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581, 587 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Gibson, 881 F.2d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 1989)).

Sixth Circuit cases on falsity indicate that a conviction cannot be based on an ambiguous question where the response is not false on its face and may be literally and factually correct. United States v. Gatewood, 173 F.3d 983, 986 (6th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hixon, 987 F.2d 1261, 1267 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gahagan, 881 F.2d 1380, 1383 (6th Cir.

1989) and citing United States v. Vesaas, 586 F.2d 101, 103 (8th Cir. 1978)). In addition, the false statement need not be express; an implied false statement can support a conviction. In United States v. Brown, supra at 484-85, the court affirmed a conviction on the basis that the use of a document makes the factual assertions necessarily implied from the statute, regulations and announced policies that created the document. The court explained, “While no case law is directly on point, we conclude that the body of law, in the aggregate, makes plain that implied falsity is a basis for a conviction.” Id. at 485.

Oral and written statements are treated the same under § 1001. United States v. Steele, 933 F.2d 1313, 1319 n.4 (6th Cir. 1991) (en banc) (citing United States v. Bramblett, 348 U.S. 503 (1955)).

Intent and knowledge need not be proved directly. Pattern Instruction 2.08 Inferring Required Mental State states this principle and should be given in appropriate cases. In addition, Pattern Instruction 2.09 Deliberate Ignorance explains one approach to proving knowledge under § 1001. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 151 F.3d 476, 484 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Arnous, 122 F.3d 321, 323 (6th Cir. 1997) (conviction affirmed based on evidence defendant deliberately ignored a high probability that food stamp application contained a material false statement)).