United States v. Jenkins, 43 F.4th 300

Defendants Andre Jenkins, David Pirk, and Timothy Enix, members/officers of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club, were tried and convicted on racketeering, narcotics, and firearms charges in the W.D.N.Y.; Pirk was National President and Enix a national officer.
At trial Pirk and Enix testified in their own defense; Jenkins did not hold a leadership role and was convicted as well.
After the close of evidence, the district court gave an interested‑witness instruction explaining that jurors may consider bias or interest when weighing testimony, that such interest requires caution but does not mandate rejection, and that a defendant who testifies should be evaluated like any interested witness.
Pirk (joined by Enix) appealed, arguing the instruction implicitly assumed defendants had a motive to testify falsely and therefore undermined the presumption of innocence; Pirk did not make a specific contemporaneous objection, so appellate review was for plain error.
The Second Circuit held the instruction was guilt‑neutral (did not say defendants had motive to lie), did not undermine the presumption of innocence, and thus was not plain error; the court affirmed in part, vacated convictions on Count 2 for Pirk and Jenkins in a concurrent summary order, and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court's interested‑witness instruction undermined the presumption of innocence by implying a defendant has a motive to testify falsely	The government: the jury charge was neutral, properly described how to assess bias, and did not assume guilt	Pirk/Enix: the charge (implicitly) suggested a testifying defendant has a motive to lie, contravening presumption of innocence and case law forbidding guilt‑assuming language	Instruction was guilt‑neutral, did not assume defendants' guilt or create a motive to lie; no plain error; instruction upheld

Nelson v. Colorado, 137 S. Ct. 1249 (2017) (reiterating the foundational status of the presumption of innocence)
United States v. Solano, 966 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 2020) (plain‑error reversal where instruction implied any witness’s interest creates motive to testify falsely, including defendant)
United States v. Gaines, 457 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2006) (error where jury charge explicitly said defendant’s personal interest creates motive for false testimony)
United States v. Brutus, 505 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2007) (Gaines applied; instruction impermissibly presupposed defendant’s guilt and could not be cured by favorable language)
United States v. Mehta, 919 F.3d 175 (2d Cir. 2019) (reaffirming that telling jurors defendant’s interest creates motive to lie is forbidden)