This report is reprinted here with the permission of
John Dowd. The contents are Copyright 1989, 1999 by John
M. Dowd, Esq. and the Baseball Archive. Any public or
commercial use, distribution or duplication of these
materials without written permission from The Baseball
Archive is a violation of federal copyright law. Use of
this site constitutes agreement with these terms.
1.
Personal Interest of the Defendant in the Outcome of
the Trial
Now the law
permits but does not require the defendant to testify
on his own behalf. Obviously a defendant has a deep
personal interest as a result of his prosecution,
indeed it is fair to say, he has the greatest
interest in its outcome.
Interest
creates a motive for false testimony and a
defendant's interest in the result of his trial is of
a character possessed by no other witness.
In appraising
his credibility, you may take that fact into
consideration.
However, I
want to say this with equal force to you -- however,
it by no means follows that simply because a person
has a vital interest in the end result, that he is
not capable of telling a truthful and straightforward
story.
It is for you
to decide to what extent, if at all, defendant's
interest has affected or colored his testimony.
United
States v. Martin, 525 F.2d 703 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 423 U.S. 1035 (1975).
2.
Testimony of Informant
In
considering [the testimony of an informant] you may
take into account that in certain types of crime the
government, of necessity, is compelled to rely upon
those who are willing to consort with criminals or
persons suspected of crime for the very purpose of
obtaining information and evidence needed to maintain
a prosecution. Indeed, it would be most difficult to
detect or prosecute some wrongdoers, and this is
particularly true in conspiracy cases. Informers are
themselves often in trouble with the law or have
prior records, which makes it possible for them to be
accepted by persons engaged in crime as one of their
own ...
The testimony
of an informer who provides evidence against a
defendant for pay, or for personal advantage or
vindication, or for immunity from punishment for his
own acts, must be examined and weighed by the jury
with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary
witness. You must determine whether the informer's
testimony has been affected by interest or by
prejudice against a defendant.
If you find
[the informer's] testimony was deliberately
untruthful, you should unhesitantly reject it.
On the other
hand, if upon a cautious and careful examination, you
are satisfied ~hat he has given a truthful version of
the events which occurred, there is no reason why you
should not accept it.
United
States v. Corcione, 592 F.2d 111 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 440 U.S. 985 (1979).
3.
Testimony of a Witness Convicted of a Crime
The testimony
of [a witness convicted of a crime or who has engaged
in any immoral or dishonest act] must also be
considered with great care and caution ....
Nevertheless, it does not follow that because [he
has] acknowledged participation in a crime or is an
accomplice that he is not capable of giving a
truthful version of what occurred.
You should
ask yourselves these questions:
Did [the
witness] give false testimony or color his testimony
contrary to fact, because he has not been prosecuted
in the remaining charges or believes that his
cooperation may result in more lenient treatment?
If you find
his testimony was deliberately untruthful, you should
unhesitantly reject it.
On the other
hand, if, upon a cautious and careful examination,
you are satisfied that he has given a truthful
version of essential events, there is no reason why
you should not accept it.
United
States v. Cotclone, 592 F.2d 111 (2d Cir.), cert.
denied, 440 U.S. 985 (1979).
