Opinion ID: 547526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jury instruction concerning absence of codefendants

Text: 37 A jury was initially selected and impaneled in this case for the joint trial of Towns and his codefendants Crane and Gilkey. Prior to opening statements, Crane and Gilkey pleaded guilty. Towns then moved for a mistrial. Judge Holderman denied the motion and instead gave the jury the following cautionary instruction: 38 Yesterday I informed you at the beginning of the jury selection process that each Defendant is entitled to separate consideration. In order to allow for separate consideration of each Defendant, we are going to proceed with the trial with regard to the Defendant Kenneth Towns. The cases of the other two Defendants who were present yesterday are to be considered at another time, and your sole consideration will be with regard to whether the Government has proven its case--at the end of the case--with regard to whether the Government has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt as to the Defendant Kenneth Towns. 39 At the conclusion of the trial, the district judge also instructed the jury as to the presumption of innocence and the assessment of credibility. Towns now argues that because we have earlier acknowledged a jury instruction regarding the absence of a codefendant as exemplary, a district judge must not deviate in any way from this approved instruction when admonishing the jury regarding the absent codefendants. 40 In United States v. Barrientos, 758 F.2d 1152, 1156-57 (7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1062, 106 S.Ct. 810, 88 L.Ed.2d 785 (1986), we stated that whenever a codefendant leaves a case in mid-trial, the trial judge should acknowledge his absence to the jury and instruct them that his absence should not affect their deliberations concerning the remaining defendants. We approved and recommended the following jury instruction given in United States v. Phillips, 640 F.2d 87, 90-91 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 991, 101 S.Ct. 2331, 68 L.Ed.2d 851 (1981): 41 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to give you a cautionary instruction in regard to the absence of [the defendant]. 42 One of the defendants who started this trial is no longer a part of the trial. For legally sufficient reasons, which I'm not going to go into at this time, he is no longer a part of this trial. I instruct you that is not and should not be of concern to you in dealing with the question of the guilt or innocence of [the remaining defendant]. And you are not to speculate as to the absence of or why the other defendant is no longer standing trial. And his absence should not control or influence your verdict in any way whatsoever with respect to the defendant who is still here. 43 The reason for this is even when defendants are tried jointly, the jury is called upon to determine the guilt or the innocence of each defendant separately and the jury will be called upon, even if they are joint defendants, to consider the evidence separately as to one defendant and then as to the next defendant. And that the purpose of a joint trial is not to implicate one defendant with the other, it's just a matter of convenience. It amounts to saving court time. 44 The fact that we have only one defendant left in this trial should be of no concern to you because whatever your verdict is, if you do reach a verdict, it has to be based solely upon the evidence that's received in this courtroom as it relates to that defendant. 45 I want to emphasize again that the remaining defendant has entered a plea of not guilty and he has therefore denied each and every essential element of the crimes charged. And that the government has a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden is still with the government and never shifts to the defendant. 46 We still find the Phillips instruction to be exemplary and advise district judges to include it in their repertoire of curative jury instructions. Nonetheless, our earlier description of the Phillips instruction as exemplary denoted that the instruction was worthy of imitation and that it effectively informed the jury of the co-defendant's absence but not the reason for his absence, and instruct[ed] them on their duty to determine separately the guilt or innocence of each defendant. This instruction focuse[d] on the jury's task at hand. Barrientos, 758 F.2d at 1156. 47 The jury instruction at issue in this case adequately informed the jury of the codefendants' absence and directed the jury to focus their energies solely on the determination of Towns's guilt or innocence. Furthermore, the judge's general instructions as to the presumption of innocence and assessment of credibility adequately protected the defendant from prejudice in his trial. 2 V. IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY 48 At Towns's trial, the district judge allowed Cecile Jackson, Towns's former girlfriend, to identify defendant Towns as one of the men pictured in some of the bank surveillance camera photographs. Defendant claims that Cecile Jackson's identification testimony was improper under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. 49 Under Federal Rule of Evidence 701, a court may admit opinion evidence by a lay witness where the witness' opinion is (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue. A district judge's decision whether to admit testimony under Rule 701 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court and a ruling will not be reversed absent a finding that the trial court abused its discretion. Kelsay v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 749 F.2d 437, 448 (7th Cir.1984) (citation omitted). 50 Generally, a lay witness may testify regarding the identity of a person depicted in a surveillance photograph if there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely to correctly identify the defendant from the photograph than is the jury. United States v. Farnsworth, 729 F.2d 1158, 1160 (8th Cir.1984). Lay witness opinion testimony is particularly appropriate when the witness was familiar with the defendant at the time of the crime and the defendant's appearance has changed by the time of trial. See id.; United States v. Barrett, 703 F.2d 1076, 1086 (9th Cir.1983); United States v. Borrelli, 621 F.2d 1092, 1095 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 956, 101 S.Ct. 365, 66 L.Ed.2d 222 (1980). Towns contends that lay witness opinion testimony concerning an identification is only admissible when the defendant has significantly altered his appearance since the time of his crime. 51 In United States v. Jackson, 688 F.2d 1121 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1043, 103 S.Ct. 1441, 75 L.Ed.2d 797 (1983), we rejected an argument identical to the one Towns now advances. The district court in Jackson allowed a witness who had met the defendant on only one prior occasion a year before a bank robbery to identify the defendant as one of the bank robbers depicted in a surveillance camera photograph. We affirmed the district court's decision to allow the witness to testify in Jackson, despite the absence of independent evidence that the defendant had changed his appearance, because the witness's testimony was helpful to a clear understanding of ... the determination of a fact in issue. FED.R.EVID. 701(b). 52 Towns's case presents a more compelling use of lay witness identification testimony, for, as the trial court noted, Towns had a moustache at the time of the robbery that he had shaved off prior to trial. Moreover, the robber depicted in the photograph was wearing a stocking cap, sunglasses, and a sweatsuit that potentially made him appear heavier than he really was. Because Cecile Jackson had a close association with Towns and had observed his appearance on the day of the bank robbery, her testimony would be particularly helpful to the jury's determination of whether Towns was the bank robber in the photograph. In admitting Cecile Jackson's identification testimony under FED.R.EVID. 701, the trial judge acted well within his discretion.