Opinion ID: 2979507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defense Theory

Text: Balark argues that the district court’s instructions denied him his right to have the jury instructed as to his theory of the case. That theory, as clearly expressed in his counsel’s closing statement, is that “all of the cooperating witnesses from Benton Harbor, many of whom were housed together, ganged up on the outsider from Chicago . . . and fabricated their testimony.” Counsel presented this theory during opening statement, cross-examinations, and closing argument. Balark’s counsel did not request a jury instruction on this theory. Balark now takes issue with the district court’s instruction regarding the lawyer’s arguments. The district court instructed the jury, “The lawyers have talked about the law during their arguments. But if what they said is different from what I say, you must follow what I say. What I say about the law controls.” Balark contends that this instruction impermissibly minimizes the significance of any argument or claim made by defense counsel. The instruction, taken directly from the Sixth Circuit’s Pattern Jury Instruction 1.02, is an indisputably correct statement of the law. It did not undercut the ability of Balark’s attorney to present his theory of the case. It fairly and adequately instructed the jury on the applicable law. or in part. Had defense counsel requested such an instruction, and had the district court refused to give it, a different result may have been warranted. But although it might be good practice to offer such an instruction, the district court’s failure to do so sua sponte does not constitute error in this case. 14