Opinion ID: 787481
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant's refusal to speak with law enforcement.

Text: 105 Next, Defendant argues that the prosecutor violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when he questioned Agent Goldman about a telephone call Goldman had made to Defendant in September 1999. Goldman testified that he had called Defendant and, when he answered, I asked if it was Al, and he said yes. And I explained to him — I identified myself, and he hung up on me. The prosecutor asked whether that was the first time he had tried to question Defendant, and Goldman said that it was. After being asked by the prosecutor what happened next, Goldman testified that he had called Defendant back and identified himself; when Defendant said that he did not know who the caller really was, Goldman gave him telephone numbers that would allow Defendant to verify his identity as an FBI agent. 106 At this point, defense counsel objected on the grounds that he had received no discovery about this exchange on the phone and that it was irrelevant and prejudicial. The district court advised the prosecutor to [g]o now to the arrest. This is a waste of time, if nothing else. And I can't think of any probative value. So it's not relevant. Go to the arrest right now. The prosecutor agreed to do so, and defense counsel requested a limiting instruction. The district court agreed to give the instruction, over the prosecutor's objection. The court gave the following instruction: 107 All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I just want to remind you and instruct you that nobody has to speak to a law enforcement officer who calls on the phone, and — we're all perfectly free to say, I don't want to talk to you, or hang up, and you should not draw any inference of guilt toward Mr. Tarallo because of the fact that he elected to do that, as is his right. It's all of our rights. 108 Notwithstanding the district court's instruction, Defendant argues that the prosecutor's question to Agent Goldman regarding Defendant's hanging up during the first call violates Defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. We see no prejudice to Defendant, even assuming that the prosecutor pursued an improper line of questioning. The district court granted counsel's objection on relevance grounds, told the prosecutor to move on immediately, and gave a limiting instruction to the jury. The court thus cured any prejudice from this passing reference. 109