Opinion ID: 601587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Co-defendant's Testimony

Text: 25 The fact that the codefendant testifies does not eliminate the appealing defendant's right to review of his own rule 29(a) motion. Belt, 574 F.2d at 1236; Franklin v. United States, 330 F.2d 205, 207 (D.C.Cir.1963); United States v. Magdaniel-Mora, 746 F.2d 715, 720 (11th Cir.1984). If a defendant introduces no evidence after the government rests, an appellate court's review is limited to the evidence produced by the government in its case-in-chief, despite the fact that co-defendants did offer testimony. Magdaniel-Mora, 746 F.2d at 720; Belt, 574 F.2d at 1236. 26 These holdings are supported by two rationales. First, the decision of a codefendant to testify and produce witnesses is not subject to the defendant's control like testimony the defendant elects to produce in his own defensive case, nor is such testimony within the government's power to command in a joint trial. Belt, 574 F.2d at 1237. Consequently, there is no reason to hold defendant responsible for testimony over which he has no control. Second, it would be improper to permit the government to rely on a testifying codefendant to supply missing links in its case. Id. 27 Rule 29 motions made at the close of the government's evidence are also preserved despite a defendant's decision to cross-examine testifying co-defendants. A defendant does not forego [sic] appellate review of his mid-trial motion for judgment of acquittal by cross-examining his codefendant and calling witnesses to rebut the codefendant's testimony. Belt, 574 F.2d at 1236. 2