Opinion ID: 739316
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Supplemental Pinkerton Instruction

Text: 90 At the conclusion of closing arguments, the district court supplemented its jury charge with an instruction on co-conspirator liability. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). Myers and Shanklin appeal their mail fraud convictions on the ground that this supplemental charge departed from the procedures prescribed in FED. R.CRIM. P. 30. Specifically, they argue that the post-argument instruction allowed the jury to consider a theory of criminal liability that defense counsel had no opportunity to rebut. According to appellants, the instruction thus deprived counsel of the opportunity to intelligently argue the case to the jury. Cf. United States v. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.1973). 91 Appellants should have requested an opportunity to supplement their closing arguments in the district court. They did not. Appellants cannot claim that they were shortchanged an opportunity to argue the Pinkerton issue when they never requested one. 92 The remaining challenges to appellants' convictions do not merit discussion. We next turn to their sentences.