Court Opinion

ID: 9466049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:04:05.085574+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:31.081243
License: Public Domain

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result of Judge Timbers’ opinion. Despite the relative frequency with which this court has indicated a preference for a cautionary instruction on eyewitness identification, see United States v. Lewis, 565 F.2d 1248, 1253 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 973, 98 S.Ct. 1618, 56 L.Ed.2d 66 (1978); United States v. Gentile, 530 F.2d 461 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 936, 96 S.Ct. 2651, 49 L.Ed.2d 388 (1976); United States v. Fernandez, 456 F.2d 638, 643-44 (2d Cir. 1972), the charge is still not required under the law of this circuit. Thus, the failure to give it in this case is not reversible error.
I concur separately, however, because I believe the time has come for this court to give a model instruction for the district courts to use in the future. In this regard, I think the approach followed by the Third, Fourth, Seventh and District of Columbia Circuits is sound. See United States v. Barber, 442 F.2d 517, 525-28 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 846, 958, 92 S.Ct. 327, 30 L.Ed.2d 275 (1971); United States v. Holley, 502 F.2d 273 (4th Cir. 1974); United States v. Hodges, 515 F.2d 650 (7th Cir. 1975); United States v. Telfaire, 152 U.S.App.D.C. 146, 469 F.2d 552 (1972). It is my hope that eventually a majority of this court will support the views there expressed.