Opinion ID: 336608
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defendant's Credibility

Text: 38 The District Court instructed the jury as follows: 39 A defendant who wishes to testify is a competent witness and his testimony should be judged in the same way as that of any other witness. 40 In determining the degree of credibility that should be accorded by you to the defendant's testimony, you are entitled to take into consideration the fact that he is the defendant and the personal interest that he has in the result of your verdict. 41 The appellant contends that this instruction constituted prejudicial error. This type of instruction has indeed been criticized by this Court. See United States v. Bear Killer, supra, at 1260; United States v. Brown, 453 F.2d 101, 107 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 978, 92 S.Ct. 1205, 31 L.Ed.2d 253 (1972); Taylor v. United States, 390 F.2d 278, 284-85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 869, 89 S.Ct. 155, 21 L.Ed.2d 137 (1968). See also United States v. Long, 449 F.2d 288, 298-99 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 974, 92 S.Ct. 1206, 31 L.Ed.2d 247 (1972). 42 We reiterate our preference that a defendant not be singled out, Taylor v. United States, supra, 390 F.2d at 285, especially in a case where much depends upon the defendant's credibility. In this case, appellant's confession and medical testimony indicating the clear use of excessive force was very strong evidence of guilt and did not leave the claim of self-defense even a close issue. We are therefore persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the use of this instruction was not prejudicial error.