ILNews

No error in refusal to tender 'missing witness' instruction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a man’s drug convictions, finding the District Court didn’t err by refusing to give the jury a requested “missing witness” instruction.

Lorenzo Tavarez was charged with two counts of distributing 50 grams or more of methamphetamine following two controlled drug buys at his apartment by a confidential informant. Before his trial, the CI disappeared and couldn’t be located by the prosecution or defense. She was the only person who had seen exactly what happened during the controlled buys leaving the government with only circumstantial evidence against Tavarez.

He requested the District Court give the jury the “missing witness” instruction, telling the jury that it could infer from the CI’s absence that the informant would have provided information unfavorable to the government’s case. The District Court declined.

Judge David Hamilton noted in United States of America v. Lorenzo Tavarez, No. 09-3879, that the missing witness instruction is disfavored in the 7th Circuit, but the District court had discretion to give it in unusual circumstances. Tavarez showed that even if called, the informant would have been able to provide relevant, noncumulative testimony on an issue in the case. But he couldn’t show that the CI was peculiarly in the other party’s power to produce. Neither the prosecution nor defense could locate the CI.

“And a witness’s status as a confidential informant does not necessarily give rise to a sufficient relationship with the government so as to render her unavailable to the defense,” wrote Judge Hamilton.

Tavarez couldn’t show the CI was available only to the government, so the District Court did not err in refusing the missing witness instruction.

The 7th Circuit also found a jury could have reasonably reached its guilty verdict based on the circumstantial evidence presented at trial. Most importantly, Tavarez’s fingerprint was found on one of the bags of drugs the CI provided to law enforcement.

"The case against Tavarez was not overwhelming. We can imagine innocent explanations for the fingerprint and the buy money in the men’s clothing,” wrote the judge. “But the ability to imagine an innocent explanation is not equivalent to harboring reasonable doubt. This circumstantial evidence was not so weak as to preclude a guilty verdict.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT