Opinion ID: 313358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: defendant's tendered instructions

Text: 40 The remainder of defense counsel's very thorough argument is addressed to his tendered instructions. These number 155, however only six of these are the subject of specific objection. 41 A. It is contended that since the trial court mentioned in the presence of the jury that Merkowitz had entered a plea of guilty, it became necessary to caution the jury that they were not to consider this for any purpose. The remark of the court occurred during counsel's cross-examination of the witness Nocenti. Determining that the questions of appellant's counsel were far afield, the court stated that the tenor of your questions is that this witness induced Mr. Merkowitz to become part of the conspiracy. So what? It is not material. He has plead guilty to being, as you know, and he is not on trial. 42 This colloquy, between the court and appellant's counsel, occurred after the subject of Merkowitz' plea had been introduced and pursued by appellant's counsel. He had previously asked of the witness Merkowitz: Now you entered your plea in September of this year, isn't that right? Moreover, during its instructions, the court stated that [t]he argument, statements and objections made by counsel to the Court or to each other, and the rulings and orders made by the Court, and the remarks made by the Court during the trial, and not directed to you, should not be considered by you in arriving at your verdict. In view of this general cautionary instruction and considering the circumstances leading to the court's statement, we conclude that prejudicial error is not established. 43 B. Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the acts of Nocenti were not the acts of a conspirator also lacks merit. When instructing on conspiracy, the trial court spoke of alleged members in the conspiracy. The court did not refer to Nocenti as a member and the indictment did not name him as a conspirator. Hence, we fail to see the necessity for instructing on this. 44 C. Emphasis is also placed on alleged error of the trial court in not giving his requested instruction on entrapment. But this defense was inconsistent with defendant's position that he was not a member of the conspiracy. See United States v. Gibson, 446 F.2d 719 (10th Cir. 1971); Munroe v. United States, 424 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1970). Moreover, the court did instruct as to appellant's theory that he believed that the packet he accepted from Nocenti contained money rather than cocaine. 45 D. We have considered appellant's contentions that the trial court erred in refusing its instructions regarding proof of an overt act and the identity of the alleged cocaine. It is sufficient to state that the court's instructions properly covered the law on those issues and it was under no duty to substitute appellant's instructions for its own. Furthermore, appellant was acquitted on Counts II and IV, thus indicating a lack of prejudice with respect to the identity of the alleged cocaine. 46 The court's charge was adequate. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.