Opinion ID: 593773
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factual Predicate for Instruction

Text: A defendant's flight from the scene of a crime may reflect the consciousness of guilt. United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 581 (9th Cir.1988). Even so, a flight instruction is proper only if it is supported by an unbroken chain of inferences stretching from the defendant's flight to guilt of the crime charged. Id. To forge the first link in the chain, the government must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in behavior which can be construed as flight. See United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036, 1049 (5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 847, 99 S.Ct. 147, 58 L.Ed.2d 149 (1978). Where the identity of the perpetrator of the crime is in dispute, the government must produce some independent evidence that it is the defendant who fled. See Perkins, 937 F.2d at 1403 (construing modified flight instruction). 2 Absent such evidence, the jury can conclude the defendant fled only by first deciding he committed the crime. In that case, Any inference of consciousness of guilt is ... unnecessary because the jury has already concluded the defendant is the perpetrator. Perkins, 937 F.2d at 1403. Here, the district court's decision to give an instruction on flight is understandable given undisputed evidence that the perpetrators of the robbery fled on foot. However, no one was able to identify any of the persons seen fleeing. As a result, the flight instruction was improper.