Opinion ID: 5804
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The instruction is substantially correct;

Text: (2) The requested issue is not substantially covered in the charge actually given to the jury; and (3) The instruction 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. Grissom, 645 F.2d 461, 464 (5th Cir. 1981). See also U.S. v. Daniel, 957 F.2d 162, 170 (5th Cir. 1992). We note, as a preliminary matter, that these conditions are worded in the conjunctive; in other words, all three prongs of the test must be met to obtain a reversal of the district court's refusal to give the specific unanimity instruction. Rochester, 898 F.2d at 978. Under the facts of this case, the first prong of the Grissom test is the most critical. If Correa is correct in asserting that his proposed specific unanimity instruction is a substantially correct statement of the law, then we would be 13 hard pressed to find that it was covered by the general unanimity instruction elsewhere in the charge. Further, we cannot reach the third branch of the inquiry unless Correa's instruction is in fact legally accurate.