## Facts

- A lone gunman robbed a Clearwater, Florida savings-and-loan branch on June 13, 1974, taking about $1,500 and fleeing.
- The central dispute at trial was identity: the government claimed Larry Allen Myers was the gunman; Myers denied involvement.
- Myers pointed to Dennis Coffie, a close physical look-alike, who pleaded guilty to being the lone gunman in the same robbery.
- The prosecution relied substantially on circumstantial evidence, including alleged “flight” episodes in Florida and later in California.
- The government introduced evidence that Myers had a prior armed bank robbery conviction.
- After the first trial ended in a mistrial due to a hung jury, a second trial resulted in Myers’s conviction and a 10-year sentence.
- At the second trial, the government called alibi-rebuttal witnesses whose identities had not been disclosed to the defense as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by allowing testimony from government alibi-rebuttal witnesses not disclosed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1.
2. Whether admitting evidence of Myers’s prior armed bank robbery conviction was improper and unfairly prejudicial in an identity-focused trial.
3. Whether a jury instruction permitting an inference of consciousness of guilt from “flight” was reversible error where the record did not adequately support the inference chain connecting the conduct to guilt for the charged robbery.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the Rule 12.1 violation was prejudicial and required a meaningful sanction; allowing undisclosed alibi-rebuttal testimony to stand warranted reversal on this record.
- The court concluded the flight instruction lacked an adequate evidentiary foundation because the proof did not reliably support the required inferences that Myers fled, that any flight reflected guilt, and that the guilt related to the charged offense.
- The court determined the admission of the prior armed bank robbery conviction created a substantial risk the jury would use it as propensity evidence, and the trial court did not sufficiently protect against that unfair prejudice in the context of a contested identity case.

## Legal Principles

- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.1 requires reciprocal disclosure of alibi and alibi-rebuttal witnesses; when the government fails to disclose rebuttal witnesses and prejudice results, exclusion or striking of the testimony may be required.
- Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to show a defendant’s propensity; even when offered for a non-propensity purpose, it must be handled with care to avoid unfair prejudice, especially where identity is the main dispute.
- A flight instruction is proper only when the evidence supports a sequence of inferences: the conduct constitutes flight, flight reflects consciousness of guilt, and the consciousness of guilt relates to the charged crime rather than another reason.
- When identity is closely contested and the case is otherwise close, errors involving surprise rebuttal witnesses, other-crimes evidence, or unsupported flight instructions are more likely to affect substantial rights and require reversal.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit ordered a new trial because the government’s use of undisclosed alibi-rebuttal witnesses, combined with an inadequately supported flight instruction and prejudicial admission of a prior bank-robbery conviction, deprived the defendant of a fair trial in a sharply contested identity case.


United States v. Myers, 550 F.2d 1036 (5th Cir. 1977)