Opinion ID: 326091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Jury Instruction re Testimony of Accomplice

Text: 85 In instructing the jury, the District Judge pointed out that William Miller, together with various other witnesses who testified, were accomplices. His instruction on this subject was as follows: 86 Now, you have here in this case several defendants who have testified here, who have pled guilty to the charges contained in this indictment. McQuearry, I believe his name was, McIntyre, Miller, who is named as a conspirator, though not a defendant, because he was heretofore been convicted or entered a plea of guilty to matters growing out of these same incidences, according to the evidence, and possibly others who were named as conspirators who have entered pleas of guilty. Now those defendants are accomplices. In other words, they admit that they did it and they are testifying in the case as to what occurred. And so you are instructed that you should scrutinize very carefully their testimony and weigh it with some degree of suspicion as to whether or not it is true. Simply because they are admitting that they did these things and as accomplices, it is the law that their statements on the witness stand should be carefully scrutinized; not that you shouldn't carefully consider all evidence, but because they are conspirators their testimony should be weighed. 87 Goble does not challenge the correctness of the instruction on the weight to be given to the testimony of an accomplice. Instead, he asserts that the District Judge confused the jury with a later observation about Miller, in particular: 88 The United States says that Miller was corroborative of what had already been proven, that these other facts have already been proven and that Miller filled in the gap, so to speak, that they would have had a case even without Miller, .... 89 Upon our review of the entire record in this case, we believe that this comment accurately states the Government's reason for using Miller as a witness. It does not, however, indicate that the Court agreed with the Government or that the jury's role as fact finder was being limited; and, therefore, it was not error. 90 We also note that at the time the specific instruction about Miller was given, the District Judge stated that Miller was naturally under attack; by his own admission he is a thief and a robber and one who was not subject to bear a good reputation, ... The jury was then told to ... judge Miller's testimony as to whether you believe he was telling the truth here on the witness stand ... whether what he told you from the witness stand was or was not true, and that is true of all witnesses, both witnesses for the United States and the defendants. 91 We find nothing improper in the above instructions.