Opinion ID: 609715
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Addict informer jury instruction

Text: 24 The appellant contends that it was plain error for the trial court not to have alerted the jury sua sponte to the unreliability of the testimony of an addict informer such as Campbell. Putting aside the factual question whether Campbell was in fact a drug addict, this court has never adopted a rule requiring a trial court sua sponte to give a special charge regarding the credibility of an informer who is also a drug addict. Cf. United States v. Kinnard, 465 F.2d 566, 572 (D.C.Cir.1972) (Bazelon, C.J., concurring) (urging adoption of a mandatory addict informer charge). Furthermore, the trial judge in this case instructed the jury that [302 U.S.App.D.C. 60] testimony from an accomplice (i.e., Campbell) should be received with caution and scrutinized with care. Accordingly, it is most unlikely that Campbell's inculpatory testimony was in any way unfairly prejudicial to the appellant's defense.