What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph FALSIA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 83-5028.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 3, 1983.
Decided Nov. 18, 1983.
Kendra S. McNally, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Thomas J. Nolan, Miller & Nolan, Inc., Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Before GOODWIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and CROCKER, District Judge.
The Honorable M.D. Crocker, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Califomia, sitting by designation.
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:
Joseph Falsia appeals his conviction on charges of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Appellant Falsia was arrested, along with Carlos Ortiz and Francisco Rodriguez, on July 21, 1982. A federal grand jury had returned a three-count indictment charging Falsia and Ortiz with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute, and distribution of cocaine. Rodriguez was granted immunity from prosecution in return for testimony against Falsia and Ortiz. After Ortiz twice failed to appear for trial, Falsia’s case was severed. Falsia was convicted on the conspiracy charge and acquitted on the other two counts.
Prior to trial, the district court refused to admit evidence of a polygraph test with results favorable to Falsia. The trial court also refused Falsia’s requested jury instruction that Ortiz was a fugitive, unavailable as a defense witness. Falsia alleges error in both of these refusals. Additionally, error is asserted in the district court’s denial of Falsia’s motion for a new trial, excluding post-trial declarations of three jurors, and prosecutorial misconduct resulting in a denial of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
II. DISCUSSION
The Polygraph Evidence
The district court refused to admit into evidence the favorable results of a polygraph test given to Falsia at his attorney’s request. Falsia argued admission was essential because his credibility was a central issue in the case and the test results were crucial to bolster that credibility. Falsia laid an extensive background for admission of the polygraph results and urged that these facts be sent to the jury for determination of reliability.
The precedent is clear. Although expert testimony relating to polygraph tests may be admissible, admission or exclusion of the evidence is in the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. McIntyre, 582 F.2d 1221, 1226 (9th Cir.1978). The burden of laying a proper foundation showing the underlying scientific basis and reliability of expert testimony is on the proponent of such evidence. United States v. Marshall, 526 F.2d 1349, 1360 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 923, 96 S.Ct. 2631, 49 L.Ed.2d 376 (1976). Even if Falsia laid a proper foundation, “the district court can consider that introduction of the polygraph evidence will inject a time-consuming, potentially prejudicial and, perhaps, confusing collateral issue into the trial.” Marshall, 526 F.2d at 1360.
“With the polygraph’s misleading reputation as a ‘truth teller,’ the widespread debate concerning its reliability, the critical requirement of a competent examiner and the judicial problems of self-incrimination and hearsay, a trial court will rarely abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the evidence, even for a limited purpose and under limited conditions.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Demma, 523 F.2d 981, 987 (9th Cir.1975) (en banc)).
The great weight of precedent and Fed.R.Evid. 403 require the district court to weigh both sides of admissibility questions. The record of the argument for admission of the polygraph evidence is replete with legal authorities, exhibits, .and declarations of experts offered to establish its reliability and credibility. The government opposed admission, offering authorities and exhibits addressing the inherent problems in utilizing polygraph evidence. These difficulties include confusing and time-consuming issues which are injected into the trial, and the misleading appearance of accuracy in polygraph test results. The district court weighed the substantial showing made by Falsia against that of the government; we cannot say he acted improperly in rejecting the polygraph evidence in this case.
The Jury Instruction
Error is asserted in the district court’s refusal to instruct the jury that Ortiz was a fugitive from justice, unavailable as a witness. Falsia argues that Ortiz was the only person who could corroborate his defense, which centered on his ignorance of the cocaine deal going on around him. Falsia claims that the court erred in not allowing him to explain Ortiz’ conspicuous absence because three jurors apparently considered that absence in convicting Falsia.
The adequacy of jury instructions is determined by examining them in their entirety. United States v. Bradshaw, 690 F.2d 704, 710 (9th Cir.1982). Where the instructions as a whole adequately cover the theory of defense, a refusal to give a requested instruction will not be overturned. Id. (quoting United States v. Kaplan, 554 F.2d 958, 968 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 956, 98 S.Ct. 483, 54 L.Ed.2d 315 (1977)). A review of the record reveals that the district court properly instructed the jury to consider only evidence pertaining to Falsia and not to judge him based on the actions of others. (R.T. 63-64). The court properly informed the jurors that Falsia was not required to call any witness and reminded them not to speculate with regard to Mr. Ortiz. (R.T. 64, 378, 389).
A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction where there is no evidence to support it, nor is he entitled to a jury instruction in his own words. United States v. Bradshaw, 690 F.2d at 710; see also United States v. Wright, 593 F.2d 105 (9th Cir.1979). The record does not require an instruction that Ortiz was absent from the witness stand, therefore unable to corroborate Falsia’s story, because he was a fugitive from justice. The record does not establish that Ortiz would have corroborated the story even if he had been present. (R.T. 56, 57).
“To constitute error the rejected instruction must have stated a legitimate defense and evidence supporting the defense must have been before the jury.” United States v. Wright, 593 F.2d at 107. There was no error on the part of the district court. The instructions that were given were sufficient to adequately cover the theory of defense that was supported by the evidence. (R.T. 377-398).
The Prosecutor’s Closing Statement
Falsia asserts that the district court erred in failing to give a requested cautionary instruction and denying a motion for mistrial based on a representation made by the prosecutor in closing argument. Falsia argues that the motion should have been granted because the statement was so prejudicial as to require mistrial and it denied Falsia’s right to confrontation as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
A prosecutor’s closing arguments must rise to the level of plain error, causing such prejudice to the defendant that reversal and a new trial is required. United States v. Suttiswad, 696 F.2d 645, 653 (9th Cir.1982). Additionally, where the defendant opens the door to an argument, it is “fair advocacy” for the prosecution to enter. United States v. Mouton, 617 F.2d 1379, 1384-1385 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 163, 66 L.Ed.2d 77 (1980). Here, the prosecutor’s closing argument was supported by the record, it did not rise to the level of “plain error.” The defendant “opened the door” to the prosecution’s statements during examination of both Rodriguez and Agent Bareng. Even if the prosecutor’s statements could be considered “slightly improper,” we cannot conclude that it more probably than not affected the verdict so as to require reversal of the district court. United States v. Valle-Valdez, 554 F.2d 911, 916 (9th Cir.1977).
In response to the argument that Falsia’s Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was denied by the closing argument, we turn to the rule espoused in United States v. DeLuca, 692 F.2d 1277 (9th Cir.1982). The rule is that once cross-examination reveals sufficient information to appraise the witnesses’ veracity, confrontation demands are satisfied. Id., at 1282. In this case, cross-examination of both Agent Bareng and Rodriguez provided ample opportunity for the jury to assess veracity. Consequently, we uphold the determination of the trial court that a cautionary instruction or declaration of mistrial was unnecessary.
The Jurors’ Declarations
Following his conspiracy conviction, Fal-sía moved for a new trial. In support of his motion, Falsía provided declarations from three jurors indicating that Ortiz’ absence influenced their deliberations. Falsía claims these declarations are not precluded by Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) because they demonstrate that “extraneous influences entered into jury deliberations to the prejudice of Falsía.” Appellant’s Brief at page 38. As a result, Falsía argues denial of the motion for new trial and exclusion of the declarations was error.
The district court has discretion over a motion for new trial and there is a “significant burden” on appellant to show an abuse of that discretion. United States v. Krasny, 607 F.2d 840, 845-846 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 942, 100 S.Ct. 1337, 63 L.Ed.2d 775 (1980). It is clear that
“[testimony of a juror concerning the motives of individual jurors and conduct during deliberations is not admissible. Juror testimony is admissible only concerning facts bearing on extraneous influences on the deliberation, in the sense of overt acts of jury tampering.”
United States v. Pimentel, 654 F.2d 538, 542 (9th Cir.1981) (emphasis added).
The jurors’ declarations did not demonstrate the extraneous influence required by Pimentel. This inadequacy caused the affidavits to be inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) and the district court properly excluded them. As a result, Falsia failed to carry the “significant burden” of demonstrating an abuse of discretion by the trial court’s denial of a new trial. We find that the district court acted properly in excluding the jurors’ declarations and denying the motion for new trial.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "natural persons"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1