Opinion ID: 2828567
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Drug-Addicted Witnesses

Text: Defendant argues that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to seek an instruction cautioning the jury to assess the testimony of drug-addicted witnesses with 19 extra care. Such an instruction should be given when warranted. See United States v. Smith, 692 F.2d 658, 661 (10th Cir. 1982). But the failure to give a drug-addict instruction is rendered harmless when vigorous cross-examination and other jury instructions alert the jury to view with skepticism a drug addict’s testimony. See United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 991–92 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cook, 949 F.2d 289, 295 (10th Cir. 1991); Smith, 692 F.2d at 661. The failure was harmless here. The government called seven witnesses with a history of drug use, and defense counsel cross-examined each of them about that issue. Also, the jury was instructed on evaluating the credibility of witnesses in general and to treat with caution the testimony of witnesses who have given inconsistent statements, who have been discredited or impeached by prior criminal convictions, or who have been promised an advantage for testifying. Defendant’s claim that his trial attorneys were ineffective for failing to request a drug-addict jury instruction fails the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.