of Homeland Security.” If the jury were to find that the government failed to meet its burden to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the purpose and conscious desire to reenter the United States on August 8, 2006 without the express consent of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,” the court instructed the jury that it “must return a verdict of not guilty.” Defense counsel was able not only to develop evidence in support of the assertion of mistaken belief, but also to argue under Instruction 12 that Defendant’s mistaken belief negated that requirement of specific intent. Had the jury believed Defendant’s theory, under Instruction 12 it would have found him not guilty. See United States v. Del Muro, 87 F.3d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). 2. The district court correctly ruled that
holding that the district court did not err in refusing to give the defendants requested instruction concerning his mistaken belief about united states citizenship because the court had given an instruction covering the elements of the crime including the mens rea element recognizing district court does not err by giving instruction that tracks pattern instruction and correctly states the law holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the defendants tendered instruction regarding the voluntariness of his confession holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present