Opinion ID: 453299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Identification Instruction

Text: 17 Appellant Juan Martinez asserts that his conviction should be reversed because the district court refused to give a jury instruction on identification of the accused, which provided, essentially, that the government must prove the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of the alleged offenses. 6 Brief of Appellant Juan Martinez at 12. Juan Martinez claims that the instruction was necessary since he challenged the Custom Officer's testimony that it was he who off-loaded one of the containers. 18 Appellant failed to object to the court's proposed jury instructions, and thus we must proceed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), which permits reversal only for plain error. United States v. McCracken, 488 F.2d 406, 413 (5th Cir.1974). We do not find any error, much less plain error, since the court's jury instructions concerning reasonable doubt and credibility of witnesses adequately covered the matter of identification. 7 United States v. Walker, 720 F.2d 1527, 1541 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1614, 80 L.Ed.2d 143 (1984) (refusal to deliver a requested instruction constitutes reversible error only if the instruction is substantively correct and (1) it was not substantially covered in the charge actually delivered to the jury and (2) the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to present an effective defense).