9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 5.4

The defendant contends that [[if] [although]] [[he] [she]] committed the acts charged in the

indictment, [he] [she] did so reasonably relying upon the affirmative advice of an authorized

[federal government official] [agent of the federal government].

To establish this defense, the defendant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the

evidence that:

First, an authorized [federal government official] [agent of the federal government] was

empowered to render the claimed erroneous advice;

Second, the [federal government official] [agent of the federal government] had been

made aware of all the relevant historical facts;

Third, the [federal government official] [agent of the federal government] affirmatively

told the defendant the proscribed conduct was permissible;

Fourth, the defendant relied on the false information; and

Fifth, this reliance was reasonable.

In deciding this, you should consider all of the relevant circumstances, including the

identity of the federal government [official] [agent], what the [official] [agent] said to the

defendant, and how closely the defendant followed any instructions the [official] [agent] gave.

A preponderance of the evidence means that you must be persuaded that the things the

defendant seeks to prove are more probably true than not true. This is a lesser burden of proof

than the government’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of [specify crime charged].

If you find that the defendant has proved that [he] [she] reasonably relied upon the

affirmative advice of the federal government [official] [agent], you must find the defendant not

guilty of [specify crime charged].