Opinion ID: 628408
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Instruct on Mistaken Identity

Text: 16 Tribble next objects to the fact that the district court did not instruct the jury on mistaken identity. Several of the family members of the inmates who were supposed to be helped by Manana Litigative Services were contacted by telephone and mail. Tribble therefore suggests that someone else might have perpetrated the fraud in his name. Tribble argues that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on mistaken identity. Once again, the government responds by arguing waiver. 17 At the final pretrial conference, the magistrate judge specifically told Tribble that he could offer a theory of defense instruction at the close of the evidence. Tr. (7/21/92) at 3-4. At the jury instruction conference during trial, Judge Shabaz went over the instructions that he planned to give. He then specifically asked Tribble whether Tribble had any further instructions that he thought would be appropriate. Tribble said there were none. Tr. (8/5/92, 8:30 a.m.) at 10. This issue has clearly been waived and is reviewable only for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 30 & 52(b). Tribble has not argued that this omission constitutes plain error. The jury was charged with determining whether the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jurors seriously doubted that Tribble was the perpetrator of the fraud, the instructions they were given directed them to return a not guilty verdict. We therefore find no plain error in the court's failure to instruct the jury on mistaken identity.