Opinion ID: 198984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Merced-Morales' Argument

Text: 105 Merced-Morales argues that the trial judge's decision not to use his proposed jury instruction regarding the cooperating witnesses Ibanez-Maldonado, Ramos-Rodriguez, and Hidalgo-Melendez violated his right to a fair trial and due process of law. The instruction proposed by Merced-Morales stated: 106 It is inappropriate to hold a defendant in prison for long periods of time pending sentencing while the government extracts information from him [because] this practice increases the likelihood that innocent individuals will be implicated by defendant trying to placate the government. 107 Merced-Morales did not object at the charge conference or after the judge instructed the jury. 108 In this Circuit, [i]t is reversible error for the court to refuse a request to instruct as to defendant's theory of the case if there is evidence to support it. United States v. Thomas, 895 F.2d 51, 55 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Leach, 427 F.2d 1107, 1112-13 (1st Cir. 1970)). However, the refusal to give a particular requested instruction is reversible error only if the instruction (1) is substantively correct; (2) was not substantially covered in the charge actually delivered to the jury; and (3) concerns an important point in the trial so that the failure to give it seriously impaired the defendant's ability to effectively present a given defense. United States v. Gibson, 726 F.2d 869, 874 (1st Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Grissom, 645 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1981)). Consequently, [t]he court need not give instructions in the form and language requested by the defendant. United States v. Morris, 700 F.2d 427, 433 (1st Cir. 1983). 109 With regard to testimony given by an accomplice, this Court has stated: 110 It is well established that an accomplice is qualified to testify as long as any agreements he has made with the government are presented to the jury and the judge gave complete and correct instructions detailing the special care the jury should take in assessing the testimony. 111 United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 13, 15 (1st Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). 112 Here, the trial judge instructed the jury to examine the testimony of an alleged accomplice who provides evidence against a defendant for personal advantage under a plea agreement . . . with greater care and caution than the testimony of an ordinary witness. The judge further instructed the jury (1) that they must consider such a witness's sentencing expectations and (2) that it is improper to convict any defendant upon the unsupported testimony of such witness unless you believe the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that the judge properly instructed the jury on issues of credibility and reject appellant's allegation of error. See, e.g., Hernandez, 109 F.3d at 15; Gibson, 726 F.2d at 874.