examined Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Luis Manuel Pea-Lora, United States of America v. Jorge Lorenzo-Hernandez, United States of America v. Thomas Lorenzo-P&eacuterez, United States of America v. Lorenzo Pea-Morfe (2×) also: Cited "see" n accomplice is qualified to testify as long as any agreements he has made with the government are presented to the jury and the judge gave complete and correct instructions detailing the special care the jury should take in assessing the testimony.

discussed Cited "see" In RE STATE (STATE v. Johanson LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 16.1(h), at 506 (1999); see United States v. LiCausi, 167 F.3d 36, 44 (1st Cir.) ("It is settled beyond peradventure that venue is a personal privilege which can be waived." (quotation omitted)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 827 , 120 S.Ct. 79 , 145 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999).

discussed Cited "see" United States v. Pena-Lora See United States v. Cruz, 156 F.3d 22, 27 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1124 , 119 S.Ct. 1781 , 143 L.Ed.2d 809 (1999). “ ‘[A] convictionbased solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice can be upheld, as long as the jury is properly instructed and the testimony is not incredi *24 ble as a matter of law.’ ” United States v. LiCausi, 167 F.3d 36, 47 (1st Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 120 S.Ct. 79 , 145 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999).