“[t]he Model Instructions, ... are not binding on the district courts of this circuit, but are merely helpful suggestions to assist the district courts.” Norton, 846 F.2d at 525. The Eighth Circuit reaffirmed this view in Jones, 23 F.3d at 1409. Accordingly, we are required to scrutinize the ISBA’s instructions and will not hesitate to disapprove faulty jury instructions. See, e.g., State v. Beets, 528 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Iowa 1995) (finding a uniform instruction regarding the offense of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse was not a correct statement of the law); State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52, 58 (Iowa 1992) (concluding uniform criminal jury instructions did not correctly state elements of assault causing bodily injury); State v. Deanda, 218 N.W.2d 649, 650-51 (Iowa 1974) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by State v.
holding the defendant is entitled to an entrapment instruction when sufficient evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find entrapment holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that even though the reasonable doubt instruction given in the case was not the preferred instruction it was not a misstatement of the law and therefore was legally appropriate holding uniform instruction given on entrapment was erroneous as among other things it ignored the factual evaluation to be undertaken on a case by case basis and failed to focus on the crucial question involved in the case