Opinion ID: 537466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Instruct Jury on Exculpatory Testimony.

Text: 14 Defendant Migdaleck contends the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury, pursuant to Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100 (1972), and United States v. Stulga, 531 F.2d 1377 (6th Cir.1976), appeal after remand, 584 F.2d 142 (6th Cir.1978), concerning evaluation of the exculpatory testimony offered by the three arsonists. 15 The testimony of arsonists Al Meridith, Jr., Willie Weems and Adar Hassan was essentially favorable to defendant Migdaleck. The three testified that the arson fires were represented to Migdaleck as legitimate losses and all three witnesses inferred that Al Meredith, Sr. operated the scheme. However, Al Meredith, Sr. testified that Migdaleck knew about the scheme, had made Sackett a public adjustor to further the scheme, paid commissions to the arsonists, and provided the funds used to purchase the materials used to start the fires. 16 On appeal, defendant Migdaleck asserts the trial court erred in failing to give an instruction which would enhance the effect of the exculpatory testimony of the three arsonists. The court instructed the jury: 17 The testimony of one who asserts by his testimony that he is an accomplice may be received in evidence and considered by the jury even though not corroborated by other evidence and given such weight as the jury feels it should have. You should always keep in mind, however, that such testimony is always to be viewed with caution and considered with great care. You should never convict a Defendant upon the unsupported testimony of an alleged accomplice unless you believe that unsupported testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. 18 (Emphasis added.) This instruction was requested by defendant McQueen and is based on Devitt and Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, 3d ed, Sec. 17.06 (1977). 19 At trial, after the court finished instructing the jury, counsel for defendant Migdaleck objected to the foregoing instruction, stating that the instruction that should have been given is: 20 [I]f you believe the evidence of the accomplice, and you feel that that in and of itself is sufficient to satisfy you that it is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then you may accept it. 21 On appeal, defendant contends that, based on his objection and requested single-sentence instruction, the trial court should have been alerted to its duty to instruct the jury on the standard for evaluating accomplice testimony pursuant to Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100 (1972), and United States v. Stulga, 531 F.2d 1377 (6th Cir.1976), appeal after remand, 584 F.2d 142 (6th Cir.1978). We disagree. 22 In Cool, the accomplice testified for the defense and his testimony was completely exculpatory. Over defense counsel's objection, the district court instructed the jury to consider the accomplice testimony if it found it true beyond a reasonable doubt. 409 U.S. at 102. The Supreme Court reversed, finding the instruction placed an improper burden on the defense, obstructed the defendant's sixth amendment right to present exculpatory accomplice testimony to the jury, and, in effect, reduced the government's burden of proof. 409 U.S. at 103, 104. In a footnote, the Court also found it confusing and unfair to instruct the jurors that they could convict on the basis of accomplice testimony without telling them they could also acquit on this basis. 409 U.S. at 103, n. 4. 23 In Stulga, several accomplices testified for the government. Two of them partially exculpated defendant. The defense counsel objected to the court's instruction on accomplice testimony and specifically requested that the jury be instructed that exculpatory testimony of an accomplice did not have to be believed beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance. Id. at 1380. The court declined to do so. On appeal, this court held the trial court committed reversible error in failing to instruct the jury on the manner in which to evaluate an accomplice's exculpatory testimony in light of the virtual dirth of inculpatory testimony and the wealth of exculpatory testimony. Id. at 1380. This court concluded that the lack of precision in the charge could have confused the jury and led it to conclude that in order to consider the accomplice's exculpatory testimony at all, it had to believe the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. 1 24 Here, unlike the situation in Stulga or Cool, defense counsel's requested instruction was not a request that the jury be advised on how to evaluate exculpatory accomplice testimony (Stulga ), or a request to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony can provide the basis of acquittal (Cool ). Rather, defense counsel's objection and proposed instruction, in effect, asked the court to instruct the jury that it could accept inculpatory accomplice testimony if it believed the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. It was essentially the same instruction as was given by the court, although the court's instruction stated the matter more understandably and more accurately. 25 We are presented then with a situation in which the defendant assigns error to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury as to the proper manner in which to evaluate exculpatory accomplice testimony, although no timely and understandable request for such an instruction was made at trial and no objection registered to its omission. Consequently, we review this assignment of error under the plain error rule. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Where, as here, no specific objection was registered at trial, reversal is required only where a miscarriage of justice would result. United States v. Hook, 781 F.2d 1166, 1172 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882 (1986). We think it is manifest that no miscarriage of justice resulted from the court's failure to instruct, sua sponte, on the manner in which the jury might have evaluated the exculpatory accomplice testimony, and defendants cite no authority to the contrary. See United States v. Vigi, 515 F.2d 290 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 912 (1975). 26