holding that the district judge committed error by using an “inappropriate” jury instruction
How later courts described this case
- holding that the district judge committed error by using an “inappropriate” jury instruction
- finding that an improper Jewell instruction was a harmless error
- reasonable doubt that the error could have tainted the result is grounds for reversal of the conviction
- applying harmless error doctrine after finding improper Jewell instruction where evidence “lucidly demonstrated” actual knowledge and was “abundantly clear”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CANBY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in all portions of Judge Anderson’s amended opinion except that which finds the Jewell instruction to have been harmless error with regard to defendant Alvarado. As the amended opinion correctly states, we may find the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if the evidence was so overwhelming that a conviction was compelled. While there was certainly sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Alvarado, I cannot say that the evidence compelled such a result. The jury could rationally have chosen to believe Alvarado’s statements that the black bag was Oqueli’s and that he, Alvarado, did not know its contents. Indeed, something kept the jury deliberating for two days before *318 the Jewell instruction was given. I would therefore reverse Alvarado’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
Oqueli’s behavior in picking up the suitcases after Alvarado’s arrest, on the other hand, can only be consistent with guilt. I therefore agree with the majority that his conviction should be affirmed.