Opinion ID: 564814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Accomplice Instructions

Text: 12 Next, Arky argues that the district court committed plain error by not sua sponte giving a special instruction about the witnesses having been Arky's accomplices. Defense counsel did not request such an instruction or object to the instructions that were given. Such omission usually precludes raising the issue on appeal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 30; United States v. Jones, 673 F.2d 115, 118 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 863, 103 S.Ct. 140, 74 L.Ed.2d 119 (1982). The issue of the omission of such an instruction may be raised on appeal as plain error pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b), but only in egregious instances. Jones, 673 F.2d at 119. To meet this standard, Arky must show that the omission of the instruction was more than reversible error; he must show that it resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. Id. (quoting United States v. Varkonyi, 645 F.2d 453, 460 (5th Cir.1981)). 13 Where an appellant challenges the omission of an instruction regarding accomplice testimony, the plain error standard may be met if such testimony was both uncorroborated and unreliable or if the issue of guilt is close. Jones, 673 F.2d at 119. In this case, each straw buyer's testimony was corroborated by Baumstein's testimony and by HUD loan documents that were put into evidence. Moreover, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. The district court, therefore, committed no plain error. 14