Opinion ID: 755808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Judicial Commentary

Text: 95 In his second issue on appeal, Stavroff challenges the district court's comment that Dosky's motivation for testifying did not relate to defendant's guilt or innocence. That comment, he claims, deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury by confirm[ing] the witness' credibility, thus encroaching upon the jury's province to determine truthfulness. 96 We disagree with defendant's characterization of what occurred. At most, the trial judge, sua sponte, ruled in front of the jury that as a matter of law the defense's line of questioning was irrelevant. He in no way gave any indication as to his opinion of Dosky's credibility. To the extent the court's comment could be inferred by the jury as an instruction to disregard any improper motivation by Dosky, we review whether, considering the charge to the jury as a whole, the court fairly and accurately submitted the issues and the applicable law to the jury. Miller v. Taylor, 877 F.2d 469, 471 (6th Cir.1989) . An erroneous or ambiguous statement will not be cause for reversal unless it is likely that this improper statement, in the context of the entire charge, misled the jury. Hurt v. Coyne Cylinder Co., 956 F.2d 1319, 1324 (6th Cir.1992). 97 A review of the court's instructions in their entirety shows that notwithstanding the court's comments, the jury was not misled. In instructing the jury at the conclusion of the evidence, the court expressly referenced the exhibits that had been admitted into evidence, which included Dosky's plea agreement, as relevant for consideration in reaching a verdict. The court alluded to the instructions to the jury pertaining to the credibility of witnesses, including impeachment. The district judge elaborated on the instruction pertaining to witnesses who have pleaded guilty, stating: 98 You have heard testimony from Steve Dosky. This witness pleaded guilty to crimes arising out of the same occurrence for which the defendant is now on trial. You may consider evidence of a witness's guilty plea as it relates to the credibility of that witness. You may not, however, consider the guilty plea of any person as evidence of guilt on the part of the defendant in this case. 99 (Emphasis added). The court specifically addressed the potential bias inherent in Dosky's plea agreement: 100 You have also heard that the government has promised Mr. Dosky that it would inform his sentencing court of his cooperation in this case. 101 It is permissible for the government to make such a promise, but you should consider Mr. Dosky's testimony with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. Consider whether his testimony may have been influenced by the government's promise.