Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendants' Claim of Error Due to Lack of Balanced Credibility Instruction

Text: 63 Defendants argue that the instructions of the trial judge improperly pointed to defendants and their interest in the result of the trial, that there was no proper balancing instruction by informing the jury of the defendants' equal competence as witnesses, and that under decisions, such as United States v. Matias, 836 F.2d 744, 749-50 (2d Cir.1988), inter alia, the prejudicial charge requires reversal. See, e.g., Appellants' Joint Brief at 42-44. 64 We do not agree. The instructions given by the trial judge in no way amounted to an undue emphasis on the deep personal interest which every defendant has in the result of his case and other portions of the charge stressed in Matias, 836 F.2d at 749-50. We have examined the entire charge given here and are not persuaded by the defendants' arguments. The judge properly cautioned the jury as to the testimony of informants with a self-interest being considered with caution and weighed with great care, and he likewise properly instructed that accomplice testimony is to be received with caution and weighed with great care. Tr. 2232-33. And the judge gave the customary instruction that the jurors were the judges of the facts, the weight of the evidence, and credibility of the witnesses, and that they might consider the interest, if any, which a witness may have in the result of the trial, inter alia. Tr. at 2235. 65 We have considered the defendants' several related complaints concerning the instructions and believe they are without merit except, as noted, with respect to submitting an entrapment instruction.