1948). See also, United States v. Corallo, 413 F.2d 1306 (Cir., 1969). 3. Middle ground: Allow conviction based solely on accomplice testimony, but require a safeguard. This Court adopts the middle ground in order to “get the good” of both positions, by allowing a criminal to be convicted solely on the testimony of his or her accomplices, but imposing a safeguard to counteract the increased danger posed by such testimony. This middle ground also reflects this Court’s belief in the jury system and in the ability of jurors to accurately assess the credibility of witnesses before them. The safeguard takes the form of a jury instruction which must be given in all criminal cases where the accomplice testimony is uncorroborated. E.g., United States v. Hill, 627 F.2d 1052 (10th Cir., 1980) (<HOLDING>). See also, 17 A.L.R. Fed. 249 (1973). Numerous
holding that a party waived an allegation that an instruction was erroneous where the party failed to object at trial to the instruction on those grounds holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated holding refusal to give pretext instruction was error but not prejudicial holding egregious harm standard applied where appellant failed to object to lack of instruction on accomplice witness testimony