US-CA3 · jury_instructions
3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Criminal) 4.16
Missing Witness
You have heard evidence about (name of missing witness), who has not
been called to testify. The defense has argued that (name of missing witness)’s
testimony could have been important to this case and that (name of missing
witness) was available as a witness only to the government and not to the
defense.
If you find that the government could have called (name of missing
witness) as a witness and that (name of missing witness) would have given
important new testimony, and you also find that (name of missing witness) was
available as a witness only to the government and not to the defense and that
the government failed to call (name of missing witness), you are permitted, but
you are not required, to infer that (name of missing witness)’s testimony would
have been unfavorable to the government.
You must decide whether you believe that (name of missing witness)
would have testified unfavorably to the government. You should not draw
such a conclusion if the witness was equally available to both parties or if the
witness’s testimony would have merely repeated the testimony of other
witnesses or evidence already presented in the case.
Provenance
- Source
- ca3.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-19
- Edition
- 2026-08-19
- Content hash
2e480c1adb790dbb2c5b546ec4b2991082e1ecd7ea27fb4cab9da7f915cef6ad
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.