Opinion ID: 3060223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Missing Witness Jury Instruction

Text: We review the district court’s refusal to give the “missing witness” jury instruction for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Link, 921 F.2d 1523, 1529 (11th Cir. 1991). “For the denial of a requested jury instruction to be reversible error a defendant must show that the instruction: (1) was a correct statement of the law; (2) was not adequately covered in the instructions given to the jury; (3) concerned an issue so substantive that its omission impaired the accused’s ability to present a defense; and (4) dealt with an issue properly before the jury.” United States v. Dulcio, 441 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). This Court previously has addressed the “missing witness” jury instruction. In United States v. Nahoom, 791 F.2d 841 (11th Cir. 1986), we stated that “[w]hen a witness is peculiarly within the control of one party, and the witness’ testimony would elucidate facts in issue, an instruction is appropriate regarding the permissible inference which the jury may draw from the party’s failure to call the 10 witness.” Id. at 846 Additionally, before the jury instruction can be given, the party requesting it “must establish the potential witness’ unavailability in a physical or practical sense” and “the potential testimony must be relevant and noncumulative.” Jones v. Otis Elevator Co., 861 F.2d 655, 659 (11th Cir. 1988). In Link, we clarified our “missing witness” instruction jurisprudence by ruling that “[w]e are aware of no authority requiring the giving of a ‘missing witness’ instruction to the jury if the so-called missing witness would testify against the interests of the defendant.” Link, 921 F.2d at 1529. In this case, Walcott has not shown that Holt’s testimony would have been favorable to him, and thus we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to present the “missing witness” instruction. See id. Walcott argues that Holt’s testimony was “likely exculpatory” because “Holt, and only Holt, could have testified as to whether he alone was responsible for posting the ad on Craigslist, and whether he alone was in control of ‘M.S.’ as she was indisputabl[y] one of ‘his girls’, and in no way under the control of or operating under [Walcott].” While Walcott asserts that Holt was likely to testify that he was in control of M.S. because M.S. testified that she had sex with Holt and worked as a prostitute for him, these assertions in no way show that Holt would have testified that Walcott was not involved or that Holt would have testified favorably to 11 Walcott. As the government’s brief points out, Walcott at trial expected that Holt would testify unfavorably, and anticipated using extrinsic evidence for impeachment purposes. Indeed, most of Walcott’s arguments at trial focused on Holt’s “credibility and truth [sic] worthiness,” not on any favorable testimony Holt might provide Walcott. Both parties anticipated that Holt would inculpate Walcott, and that Walcott wanted Holt to take the stand only so Walcott could impeach him. Given the record before us, a “missing witness” instruction was not required.