agreement instruction discussed supra, a drug user instruction, and a prior felon instruction. See I R. Doc. 38, at 6, 9, 11. Both accomplices that testified against Petitioner in regards to Count 3 of the indictment were drug addicts or users and prior felons. We assume that the jury applies the law as given in the jury instructions to the facts of the case, and the jury instructions as a whole adequately warned the jury why the accomplices’ testimony could be particularly unreliable— drug use, former convictions, and the hope of gaining leniency under a plea agreement. In particular, the drug addict instruction specifically instructed the jury to consider testimony from a drug user with “great scrutiny.” Id. at 9. See also United States v. Smith, 692 F.2d 658, 661 (10th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Though it does not figure large in our
holding that failure to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony must be carefully scrutinized weighed with great care and received with caution was plain and reversible error holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony 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 that district courts failure to give an addict instruction was not reversible error because the instructions to the jury on accomplice immune informant and felon testimony along with the general credibility instruction were sufficient to alert the jury to consider with special care and weigh with caution the testimony of the witness