conceal himself, you will determine from all of the evidence in the case. And, unless you find that he did so take flight or conceal himself, you will entirely disregard my instruction just imparted to you upon those questions. (emphasis added). The Third Circuit concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial instruction to the jury on the issue of flight and that the instruction was proper and court’s protected the rights of the defendant. 468 F.2d 482, 48990 (3d United States v. Miles, Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). 518 F. App'x. 125, 2013 See also United States v. Terry, WL 2166117 (3d Cir. 2013) (non-precedential) (holding that instruction was warranted even though officer tackled defendant as he started to flee). In 94 F. 134, 138 (3d Cir. 2004), a United States v. Katzin, App’x. decision, the Third Circuit affirmed the admissibility of flight evidence to prove consciousness of guilt when the trial court properly instructed the jury on how to weigh such evidence and approved the trial instruction on the evidence, stating: court’s We have consistently held that of a flight after a “evidence defendant’s crime has been committed is admissible to prove the defendant's consciousness of We hold such evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt to be guilt.” considered with the other facts of the case. In fact, the District Court charged the jury to consider the evidence only for proper purposes. or not evidence (“Whether of flight or concealment shows a consciousness of guilt, and the significance, if any, to be attached to such a circumstance are matters for determination by you, the Evidence of flight is not considered inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. jury.”). 404(b). We find no error here. An instruction addressing this evidence may not be required. See United States v. 896 F. Supp. 450, 456 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (no instruction given addressing Rothberg, evidence of use of alias admissible as consciousness of guilt). (Revised 11/2013)
conceal himself, you will determine from all of the evidence in the case. And, unless you find that he did so take flight or conceal himself, you will entirely disregard my instruction just imparted to you upon those questions. (emphasis added). The Third Circuit concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify the trial court’s instruction to the jury on the issue of flight and that the instruction was proper and protected the rights of the defendant. United States v. Miles, 468 F.2d 482, 48990 (3d Cir. 1972) (citation omitted). See also United States v. Terry, 518 F. App'x. 125, 2013 WL 2166117 (3d Cir. 2013) (non-precedential) (holding that instruction was warranted even though officer tackled defendant as he started to flee). In United States v. Katzin, 94 F. App’x. 134, 138 (3d Cir. 2004), a decision, the Third Circuit affirmed the admissibility of flight evidence to prove consciousness of guilt when the trial court properly instructed the jury on how to weigh such evidence and approved the trial court’s instruction on the evidence, stating: We have consistently held that “evidence of a defendant’s flight after a crime has been committed is admissible to prove the defendant's consciousness of guilt.” We hold such evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt to be considered with the other facts of the case. In fact, the District Court charged the jury to consider the evidence only for proper purposes. (“Whether or not evidence of flight or concealment shows a consciousness of guilt, and the significance, if any, to be attached to such a circumstance are matters for determination by you, the jury.”). Evidence of flight is not considered inadmissible under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). We find no error here. An instruction addressing this evidence may not be required. See United States v. Rothberg, 896 F. Supp. 450, 456 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (no instruction given addressing evidence of use of alias admissible as consciousness of guilt). (Revised 11/2013)
2014%20Chapter%204%20final.docx