What is the current state of the law on eyewitness identification in criminal cases?

This instruction fairly implied the crime must have been committed by someone else and was therefore sufficient to withstand a plain error challenge. See United States v. Armstrong, 909 F.2d 1238, 1243-44 (9th Cir.1990). Furthermore, any deficiency in the instructions with respect to aiding and abetting would not have affected Verdugo's substantial rights--the jury could properly convict Verdugo for participation in the conspiracy without reference to aiding and abetting.

C. Eyewitness Identification