THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin
Go to Shellow Collection Table of Contents

Accomplices

    1.    Accomplice Liability: Crime Must Have Been Committed By Someone
    2.    Accomplice Liability: Negligent Or Mistaken Assistance Insufficient
    3.    Accomplice Liability: Defendant Must Know What Specific Offense 
           Was Being Committed
    4.    Accomplice Liability: Acts Must Be Committed Before Or During The Offense
    5.    Accomplice Liability: Accomplice Must Have A Stake In The Venture
    6.    Accomplice Liability: Perpetrator Must Know Of And Accept The Assistance
    7.    Accomplice: Cautionary Instruction
    8.    No Conviction Based On Unsupported Testimony Of Accomplice Unless Jury Believes 
           Testimony Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
    9.    Informers And Accomplices: Cautionary Instruction Regarding Secret Motives To 
           Give False Testimony
    10.  Weighing Accomplice Testimony: Greater/More Caution Than Other Witnesses
    11.  Accomplice Testimony: Inherently Suspect
    12.  Accomplice Testimony: Conflicting Statements Concerning His Or Her Knowledge
    13.  Accomplice Testimony: Consider Motives
    14.  Accomplice Testimony: Different Rules Apply
    15.  Corroboration Of Accomplice Testimony
    16.  Accomplice Testimony: Factors Affecting Credibility
    17.  Accomplice Testimony To Be Viewed With Distrust
    18.  Accomplice Witness, With Immunity
    19.  No Conviction Based On Testimony Of Alleged Accomplice Unless It Is Highly Credible
    20.  Accomplice: Presence And Knowledge Not Sufficient
    21.  Accomplice: Association Insufficient

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    Someone must actually commit a crime before anyone can be convicted of aiding and abetting its commission. In other words, unless a principal commits the crime, no one can be convicted of aiding and abetting him.

    I do not mean by this that the principal must be convicted of the crime, or even that he must be charged with it. It is only necessary that the evidence show that someone committed the crime. If that has been shown, then defendants can be convicted as aiders and abettors

United States v. Brunson, 657 F.2d 110 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Doughty, 460 F.2d 1360, 1362-63 (7th Cir. 1972).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 64.3 [Accomplice Liability: Guilt Of Perpetrator As Required Element].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    Not every person who helps or assists another in the commission of a crime can be convicted as a aider and abettor. First, no one can be convicted as an aider and abettor unless he intentionally assists or helps the principal commit the offense. If he is merely negligent, or acts through mistake or ignorance, he cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime even though his acts did assist the principal in his commission of the offense

United States v. Barclay, 560 F.2d 812, 817 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Greer, 467 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 929 (197 ); United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Garcia-Geronimo, 663 F.2d 738 (7th Cir. 1981).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See generally NCJIC Chapter 64: Accomplice Liability (Aiding And Abetting, Accessory Before The Fact, Etc.).

See also NCJIC 64.1.1 [Accomplice Liability Requires A Specific Intent Mens Rea].

See also NCJIC 64.1.2 [Accomplice Liability: Requirement Of Intent To Facilitate The Crime].

See also NCJIC 64.4.1 [Accomplice Liability: After Acquired Knowledge Or Intent Insufficient]; cf. NCJIC  64.3.7 [No Accomplice Liability For Intentional Murder Unless Perpetrator Harbored Express Malice Or  Intended To Kill].

See also NCJIC 64.4.2 [Post-Crime Assistance Insufficient For Accomplice Liability].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    No one can be convicted of aiding and abetting unless the government proves that at the time of his acts he knew that he was assisting the principal in the commission of the specific offense. That is, unless someone knows before he acts exactly what crime is being committed, he cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting the commission of that offense. It is not enough for a person generally to know merely that he is doing something wrong or illegal to be convicted as an aider and abettor. He must know the specific crime which is being or will be committed by the principal.

United States v. Barclay, 560 F.2d 812 (7th Cir. 1977); United States v. Greer, 467 F.2d 1064 (7th Cir. 1972); cert. denied, 410 U.S. 929 (197 ).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See generally NCJIC Chapter 64: Accomplice Liability (Aiding And Abetting, Accessory Before The Fact, Etc.).

See also NCJIC 64.4.1 [Accomplice Liability: After Acquired Knowledge Or Intent Insufficient].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    The acts of an aider and abettor must be committed either before or during the principal's commission of the offense. Acts committed after the crime do not aid and abet its commission.

United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1969).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 64.4 [Accomplice Liability: Knowledge, Intent And Act Must Precede The Crime].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    An aider and abettor must desire or intend that the crime be committed and in some sense profit by its commission. He must have a stake in the venture. He must wish it to succeed as though it were his own

United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441 (7th Cir. 1980); United States v. Garcia-Geronimo, 663 F.2d 738 (7th Cir. 1981); United States v. Varelli, 407 F.2d 735 (7th Cir. 1969); United States v. Barclay, 560 F.2d 812 (7th Cir. 1969).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See generally NCJIC Chapter 64: Accomplice Liability (Aiding And Abetting, Accessory Before The Fact, Etc.).

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    The principal must know that he is being aided and abetted. A person who assists another in the commission of a crime is not an aider and abettor unless the principal knows of and accepts the assistance.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See generally NCJIC Chapter 64: Accomplice Liability (Aiding And Abetting, Accessory Before The Fact, Etc.).

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    You are instructed that the testimony of one who claims to be an accomplice implicating a defendant as a perpetrator of a crime is inherently suspect because such a witness may well have an important personal stake in the outcome of the trial. An alleged accomplice so testifying may believe that a defendant's acquittal will deny to the witness certain expected rewards which he may have been directly or indirectly promised in return for his cooperation.

United States v. Padgent, 432 F.2d 701, 704 (2d Cir. 1970).

    An accomplice is one who claims that he united with another person in the commission of a crime, voluntarily and with common intent. An accomplice does not become incompetent as a witness because of participation in the crime charged. On the contrary, the testimony of one who asserts by his testimony that he is an accomplice, may be received in evidence and considered by the jury, even though not corroborated by other evidence and given such weight as the jury feels it should have. The jury, however, should keep in mind that such testimony is always to be received with caution and considered with great care.

    You should never convict a defendant upon the unsupported testimony of an alleged accomplice, unless you believe that unsupported testimony beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. James E. Johnson, Case No. 97-CR-211 (E.D. Wis. 1998); United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981).

    You are instructed as a matter of law that accomplices are tainted with confessed criminality and are often influenced in their testimony by a strong motive of hope, or favor, or of pardon. It is therefore incumbent upon a jury to look carefully into the secret motive that might actuate bad minds to draw in and victimize the innocent.

United States v. Murray, 445 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1971); Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644, 646-47 (5th Cir. 1969).

    The testimony of one who claims to be an accomplice of the defendant ought to be received with suspicion and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other witnesses.

United States v. Davis, 439 F.2d 1105, 1106 (9th Cir. 1971).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 5:

    The testimony of an alleged accomplice is admissible and entitled to such weight as the jury feels it should have. In weighing the evidence of an alleged accomplice, you should give due regard to the fact that he might have been on trial as a defendant himself. You should weigh his testimony carefully and cautiously.

United States v. Isaacs, 493 F.2d 1124, 1164 (7th Cir. 1974).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 6:

    You will hear the testimony of ____________, a person who admits that he participated in the crime which is the subject matter of this trial. The testimony of such an accomplice witness should be viewed with distrust. This does not mean that you may arbitrarily disregard his testimony, but you should give it the weight, if any, to which you find it to be entitled after examining it with care and caution and in light of all the evidence in the case.

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 7:

    You have heard testimony from ____________, who stated that she was involved in the commission of the alleged crimes charged against these defendants. You may give her testimony such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care.

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 8:

    An accomplice is anyone who knowingly and intentionally or assists another in the commission of a crime.

    If any witness claims that he or she was an accomplice, then the testimony of that witness should be received with greater caution and weighed with more care than the testimony of an ordinary witness. You should consider that testimony carefully to determine whether in your opinion the witness may have testified falsely in order to further his or her own interests.

    You should give that testimony the weight which in your judgment it is fairly entitled to receive.

CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:

United States v. Brown, No. CR83-310(C)M (W.D. Wash. 1983).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 9:

    An accomplice is one who claims that he united with another person in the commission of a crime, voluntarily and with a common intent. Statements attributed to an alleged accomplice do not become incompetent merely because the accomplice claims that he participated in the crime charged.

    Experience has shown that accomplices may be motivated to place the responsibilities on others than themselves. Accordingly, statements attributed to an accomplice should be closely examined, weighed with care, compared with the facts which you find to exist in the case, and against evidence which may corroborate them. After such consideration, you should then give statements attributed to an accomplice such weight as you deem proper.

    You should never convict a defendant upon unsupported statements of an alleged accomplice, unless you believe those unsupported statements beyond a reasonable doubt.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

1 Devitt & Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, §17.06.

United States v. James E. Johnson, Case No. 97-CR-211 (E.D. Wis. 1998); United States v. Stillman, No. 80-133-Erie (W.D. Pa. 1981).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

See also NCJIC 38.1 [Accomplice Corroboration].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    I charge you as a matter of law that persons who claim to be accomplices and informers are tainted with confessed criminality and often influenced in their testimony by strong motive of hope, of favor or of pardon, and, there fore, it is incumbent upon a jury to look carefully into the secret motives that might actuate bad minds to draw in and victimize the innocent.

    I further charge you that the testimony of any witness whose self-interest or attitude is shown to be such as might tend to prompt testimony unfavorable to the accused should also be considered with caution and weighed with great care.

United States v. Murray, 445 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1971).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

See also NCJIC 25.7 [Witness Or Informant Receiving Benefit From Prosecution].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

10.    Weighing Accomplice Testimony: Greater/More Caution Than Other Witnesses

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    You have heard the testimony of ______________. He is providing evidence for the government in exchange for a promise from the government that [e.g.: he will not be prosecuted for the things he is testifying about; the prosecution will recommend lenient treatment in his own case]. He told the government what he would testify to in exchange for this promise.

    The government may present the testimony of someone who has been promised favorable treatment in his own case in exchange for his testimony. Some people in this position are entirely truthful when testifying. Still, you should consider the testimony of _______________ with more caution than the testimony of other witnesses. He may have had reason to make up stories or exaggerate what others did because he wanted to strike a good bargain with the government about his own case. In deciding whether you believe __________'s testimony, you should keep these comments in mind.

AUTHORITIES: 

Federal Judicial Center, PATTERN CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS No. 24 [Testimony of Accomplice or Other Witness Testifying in Exchange for Immunity or Reduced Criminal Liability: Cautionary Instruction Evaluating Particular Kind of Evidence ] (1988); United States v. Braxton, 877 F.2d 556, 565 (7th Cir. 1989) ("The better practice is for the court to instruct the jury about the plea agreement and the benefits that the accomplice hopes to receive so that the jury knows as much as possible about an accomplice's incentive to falsify testimony"; citing this instruction as alternative).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

    The testimony of an alleged accomplice, someone who said he participated with another person in the commission of a crime, must be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care than the testimony of a witness who did no participate in the commission of that crime.

    ____________ may be considered an alleged accomplice in this case.

    The fact that an alleged accomplice has entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged is not evidence of the guilt of any other person including the defendant.

    The jury must determine whether the testimony of the accomplice has been affected by self-interest, or by the agreement he may have with the government, or by his own interest in the outcome of this case, or by prejudice against the defendant.

AUTHORITIES: 

§15.04, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (O'Malley, Grenig and Lee (5th Ed. 2000).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 3:

    You have heard testimony from __________ (name of accomplice) [and __________ (name of accomplice)], who stated that (he/she/they) participated in the crimes charged against __________ (name of defendant). You may give their testimony such weight as you think it deserved. Whether or not (his/her/their) testimony may have been influenced by (his/her/their) desires to please the government, or to strike a good bargain with the government about (his/her/their) own situation, is for you to determine. If you find that the testimony of [ __________ (name of accomplice)] [either] was not corroborated, then you should consider that testimony with greater caution and care than that of an ordinary witness.

United States v. Shyres, Martino and Orloff, No. 88-0090-CR(3) (E.D. Mo. 1988), aff'd, 898 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1990).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:

    An accomplice's testimony implicating a defendant as a perpetrator of a crime is inherently suspect because such a witness may well have an important personal stake in the outcome of the trial. An accomplice so testifying may believe that a defendant's acquittal will deny to the witness certain expected rewards which he may have been directly or indirectly promised in return for his cooperation.

AUTHORITIES:

United States v. Padgent, 432 F.2d 701, 704 (2d Cir. 1970).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

12.    Accomplice Testimony: Conflicting Statements Concerning His Or Her Knowledge

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 1:

    The testimony of an accomplice should always he scrutinized carefully by the jury because of its inherent untrustworthiness. This is especially true when the witness has shown his or her unreliability by making conflicting statements concerning his or her knowledge of the crime. The greatest care must be exercised in evaluating the testimony of an accomplice.

AUTHORITIES:

Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644, 646-647 (5th Cir. 1969).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644, 646-67 (5th Cir. 1969).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

13.    Accomplice Testimony: Consider Motives

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    Accomplices who are tainted with confessed criminality are often influenced in their testimony by a strong motive of hope of favor or of pardon. It is therefore incumbent upon you, the jury, to look carefully into the secret motive that might actuate bad minds to draw in and victimize the innocent.

AUTHORITIES:

United States v. Murray, 445 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1971); Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644, 646-647 (5th Cir. 1969).

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

United States v. Leonard, 494 F.2d 955, 961 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

United States v. Murray, 445 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1971).

United States v. Murray, 445 F.2d 1171, 1176 (3d Cir. 1971); Tillery v. United States, 411 F.2d 644, 646-647 (5th Cir. 1969).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    The testimony of an accomplice ought to be received with suspicion and with the very greatest care and caution, and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other apparently credible witnesses.

AUTHORITIES:

United States v. Davis, 439 F.2d 1105, 1106 (9th Cir. 1971).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    An accomplice is a witness who claims that the defendant participated with the witness in the commission of the crime.

    Because of the unreliability of the testimony of one who claims he was an accomplice of a defendant, the law does not allow a jury to convict anyone on such testimony unless it is corroborated by other credible evidence.

    Such corroboration to be considered by the jury must be of evidence which is probative, that is which tends to prove, a defendant's guilt. Evidence which merely corroborates other testimony of a claimed accomplice but which does not corroborate the defendant's participation in the commission of the crime is not such corroboration as will permit a conviction.

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION # 2:

    The accused cannot be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice-witness such as ____________ who has admitted his own participation in the charged crime unless that testimony is corroborated, that is verified, by other evidence which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime. Corroboration is required because a witness who himself was involved in the charged crime is assumed to be willing falsely to accuse others of crime in order to purchase for himself immunity from or reduction of punishment. The corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the crime or the circumstances of the commission; it is necessary that there be other evidence independent of ____________ testimony which tends to connect the accused to the commission of the crime.

    It is not necessary that the corroboration be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense, or that it corroborate every fact to which ____________ testifies.

    Evidence corroborates when it induces a rational belief that the narrative of the accomplice is truthful; that is when it dispels the assumption that the accomplice is an inventor of facts and incidents.

    If you do not find that there is other evidence tending to connect the accused with the commission of the crime sufficient to corroborate ____________'s testimony, then you must find the accused not guilty. On the other hand, if you conclude there is sufficient other evidence independent of __________'s own testimony which corroborates his claims, then you should evaluate his testimony in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness, and determine what weight, if any, it is fairly entitled to receive.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

    ____________ has testified on behalf of the State, and if his testimony is true, he participated in the crime charged against the defendant and is an accomplice therein. You are instructed that the evidence of a person who claims to be an accomplice is competent evidence in the criminal case upon which to base a verdict of guilty, providing it is of such a character, taken in connection with all other evidence in the case, as to satisfy you of the guilt of the defendant in such case beyond a reasonable doubt. But ordinarily, it is unsafe to convict upon the uncorroborated testimony of a person who claims to be an accomplice. Therefore, you should examine such evidence with the utmost care and caution, scrutinize it closely, and weigh it in the light of all the attending circumstances as shown by the whole evidence. You should not base a verdict of guilty upon it alone, unless after such scrutiny and consideration it satisfies you of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

    It is a rule that the testimony of a person who claims to be an accomplice is to be carefully examined and scrutinized and is to be given only such weight and credit as under all the circumstances you believe it fairly entitled to receive. If, however, it appears to you to ring true, then you are entitled to believe it and base your findings wholly or partly upon it.

    The testimony of a witness who provides evidence against a defendant for immunity from punishment must be examined and weighed by the jury with greater care than the testimony of an ordinary witness. The jury must determine whether his testimony has been affected by his interest or his prejudice, if any, against the defendant.

    The testimony of an admitted perjurer should always be considered with caution and weighed with great care.

CASES WHERE THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION WAS GIVEN:

State v. Schaffer, No. I-4977, (Circuit Court, Milwaukee, County)

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

CAVEAT:  Use of the term "accomplice" may be prejudicial to the defendant.  See NCJIC 25.6.6 [No Reference To The Term "Accomplice"].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:

    You will hear the testimony of ____________, a person who admits that he participated in the crime which is the subject matter of this trial. The testimony of such an accomplice witness should be viewed with distrust. This does not mean that you may arbitrarily disregard his testimony, but you should give it the weight, if any, to which you find it to be entitled after examining it with care and caution and in light of all the evidence in the case.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT:  Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

    You have heard testimony from ____________, who stated that he was involved in the commission of the crimes charged against ____________, and who received immunity; that is, a promise from the government that he will not be prosecuted for these crimes. You may give ____________’s testimony such weight as you feel it deserves, keeping in mind that it must be considered with caution and great care.

AUTHORITIES:

7TH CIRCUIT FEDERAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL 3.13 [Witnesses Requiring Special Caution] (1999).

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

THE SHELLOW COLLECTION
Jury Instructions By James M. Shellow of Wisconsin

ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

United States v. Braxton, 877 F.2d 556, 564-65 (7th Cir. 1989).

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses.

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Aiding And Abetting.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1300 (2d Cir. 1977) (Friendly, J.); United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535, 549 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

United States v. Durrive, 902 F.2d 1221, 1225 (7th Cir. 1990).

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses.

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].

ALERT: Carefully review the Caveats and Disclaimers before using these materials.

United States v. Jenkins, 779 F.2d 606 (11th Cir. 1986); Snyder v. United States, 448 F.2d 716, 718 (8th Cir. 1971); Ramirez v. United States, 363 F.2d 33, 34 (9th Cir. 1966); United States v. Garguilo, 310 F.2d 249, 253 (2d Cir. 1962).

United States v. Linton, No. CR-R-8024-ECR (D. Nev. 1981).

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Witnesses.

See also THE SHELLOW COLLECTION: Aiding And Abetting.

RELATED NCJIC MATERIALS:

See NCJIC 25.6 [Accomplices: Cautionary Instructions].