Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03082/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawyer Campbell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3082

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Lawyer Campbell, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 12, 2005

Filed: April 25, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The government charged Lawyer Campbell with six counts of drug and firearm

offenses. At the jury trial, Campbell moved for a mistrial based on a statement the

government made during closing arguments. The district court denied the motion for

a mistrial. The jury found Campbell guilty on five of the six counts, and guilty of a

lesser included offense on the remaining count. The district court1

 sentenced

Campbell to 364 months imprisonment. Campbell appeals, arguing the district court

Appellate Case: 04-3082 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1894990
-2-

abused its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial and his sentence constitutes cruel

and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm.

Campbell argues the district court abused its discretion in failing to grant a

mistrial based on a statement the government made during closing arguments. During

closing arguments, the government stated “Just as the burden is on the Government

to prove that [the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt], the burden is on the

defendant for his own actions.” Campbell objected. The district court sustained the

objection and instructed the jury to disregard the statement. Campbell then moved

for a mistrial, which the district court denied. Although the comment was improper,

Campbell’s argument fails because he cannot show the remarks prejudicially affected

his substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial. See United States v. O’Dell,

204 F.3d 829, 834 (8th Cir. 2000) (noting that a mistrial may be granted for

prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments when (1) the remarks are in fact

improper, and (2) the remarks prejudicially affect the defendant’s substantial rights

so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial). “In assessing the prejudicial impact of

prosecutorial misconduct we consider: 1) the cumulative effect of the misconduct; 2)

the strength of the properly admitted evidence; and 3) the curative actions taken by

the district court.” United States v. Wadlington, 233 F.3d 1067, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000).

Here, the district court instructed the jury to disregard the statement, the

cumulative effect of the statement was minimal, and the properly admitted evidence

was strong. We determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to grant a mistrial. See United States v. Cole, 380 F.3d 422, 426-27 (8th Cir.

2004) (reviewing the district court’s denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of

discretion).

Campbell also argues his mandatory minimum sentence constitutes cruel and

unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Under the circumstances

of this case, Campbell’s 364-month sentence is very harsh. We reject Campbell’s

Appellate Case: 04-3082 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1894990
-3-

argument, however, because his sentence, required by 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s five-year

statutory minimum sentence for count two and twenty-five-year statutory minimum

sentence for count six, does not violate the Eighth Amendment. See 18 U.S.C. §

924(c); United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 840 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S.

1028 (1996); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3082 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/25/2005 Entry ID: 1894990