Opinion ID: 42471
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Instruction on Eyewitness Certainty

Text: We review the district court’s refusal to give a defendant’s requested jury instructions for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chirinos, 112 F.3d 1089, 1101 (11th Cir. 1997). A refusal to give a requested jury instruction is an abuse of discretion if: “1) the instruction is correct; 2) the court did not address the substance of the instruction in its charge; and 3) the failure to give the instruction seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to present an effective defense.” United States v. Sirang, 70 F.3d 588, 593 (11th Cir. 1995). “[W]e examine whether the jury charges, considered as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so that the By the way, even if the district court erred in excluding this element of Dr. Leippe’s testimony, the error was probably harmless. The eyewitness identifications were not the linchpin of the prosecution’s case. The prosecution gave only limited attention to the witness’s level of certainty in presenting its case: only a single question in the Government’s direct examination of each of the eyewitnesses asked whether they had any “doubt” that Smith was the robber. 9 As one example, Todd Griffin corroborated the eyewitness accounts. As another, two women -- Linda Gardner (Smith’s ex-girlfriend of several years) and her mother -- identified Smith when viewing the bank surveillance video/pictures. Therefore, even if the district court erred by excluding the testimony of an expert who would have undermined the eyewitnesses’ identifications, the error was harmless because the Government presented substantial additional evidence of Smith’s guilt. Those courts that have admitted experts like Dr. Leippe have reached that conclusion in part because the eyewitness identification played a much more significant role in the prosecution’s case. See, e.g. United States v. Lester, 254 F.Supp.2d 602, 610 (E.D. Va. 2003) (observing that the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Circuits take this approach). 11 jurors understood the issues and were not misled.” Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, Defendant requested the judge to provide a pretty elaborate (four pages long) instruction on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. The requested instruction included a discussion that emphasized a variety of factors that potentially affect eyewitness identifications, including: the circumstances surrounding the identification, the age and race of the eyewitness, stress, the viewing of mug shots or photo spreads or both after the criminal event but before a later in-person identification, the length of time between the criminal event and the later identification, the lack of correlation between witness confidence and accuracy, and the conditions affecting viewing during the time of the crime (including the presence of a weapon, visibility and distance). The requested instruction was argumentative at some points: for example, “When a weapon is present, the witness’[s] attention is drawn to the weapon and away from the facial and physical characteristics of a perpetrator” (emphasis added) reads like opposition to the eyewitness identifications rather than guidance to jurors about their role in evaluating the accuracy of testimony. The district court did give an instruction guiding the evaluation of eyewitness identification which broadly addressed the substance of the requested 12 charge. Although the given instruction may not have detailed every factor that Defendant highlighted might affect an identification, the district court’s instruction was sufficiently comprehensive to assist the jury in evaluating the accuracy of the eyewitness identifications. The court instructed the jury on the effect of circumstances surrounding the identification, the race of the eyewitness, stress, the length of time between the criminal event and the later identification, and conditions affecting eyewitness observation during the time of the crime (including visibility and distance). This instruction addressed the substance of the potential problems -- both physical and psychological -- that Defendant requested the trial court to explain might affect the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. For example, although the district court’s instruction did not specifically address the weapon-focus effect, this factor was encompassed by the instruction on the effect of stress: a jury can infer -- without instruction -- that the presence of a weapon may create a stressful environment, which (as they were properly instructed) may affect the accuracy of an identification. As another example, on the requested instruction about the effect of viewing mug shots or photo spreads (or both) after the criminal event but before a later in-person identification, we believe that the district court’s instruction to the jury to consider the circumstances surrounding the later identification encompasses this caution: a witness’s prior 13 viewing of a picture of the Defendant is a “circumstance” that may affect the later identification. We conclude that the district court’s refusal to give Defendant’s instruction was no abuse of discretion: the jury was sufficiently instructed and not misled.10