Opinion ID: 202894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Instruction Regarding Stark's Arrest

Text: Stark challenges the district court's response to the jury's question asking whether they could consider testimony by O'Neill stating that he met Stark at his arrest and Mirandized him. The district court answered: Yes. However, you shall not consider the evidence of the arrest in any way as proof of guilt. A district court's decision to give a particular instruction, over a party's objection, constitutes reversible error only if the instruction was (1) misleading, unduly complicating, or incorrect as a matter of law; and (2) adversely affected the objecting party's substantial rights. Faigin v. Kelly, 184 F.3d 67, 87 (1st Cir.1999). [5] The district court's response may have been misleading because O'Neill met Stark after his arrest, not at his arrest as stated in the jury's question. However, the court's instruction does not rise to the level of reversible error because Stark has not demonstrated that it affected his substantial rights. As such, his claim fails.