Opinion ID: 167549
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Daniel Long’s D eath

Text: On the day of trial, the government informed the court it wished to mention in its opening statement that Daniel Long was the fourth person at the scene and that he had died as a result of the fire. It wished to explain to the jury why it was prosecuting Shultz’s death, but not Long’s, i.e., because federal jurisdiction only extended to Shultz’s death. W ard objected based on the fact he was not charged with Long’s death. The district court overruled the objection, stating a brief explanation of Long’s death was appropriate for clarification purposes. It also stated the government would be allowed to explain to the jury why it would be hearing more about Shultz than Long. Based on the court’s ruling, in its opening statement, the government stated two people died as a result of the fire, Shultz and Long. It also explained it only had jurisdiction over Shultz’s death due to her being an enrolled member of an Indian tribe. Later, during the testimony of Dr. Phillip Andre Floyd, Shultz’s treating physician, the government asked him if he w as familiar with Long’s case. Defense counsel objected. Outside of the hearing of the jury, the government informed the court it only intended to ask Dr. Floyd whether Long had died and its purpose in doing so was to tie up what happened to the fourth person on the scene. The court -21- overruled the objection and Dr. Floyd said Long had died. In its closing rebuttal argument, the government again mentioned Long’s death, stating Christopher W ard was making methamphetamine. [He] knew the dangers created by using that method in that trailer. . . . He brought a substance like this that said it was flammable, and he put it in that trailer. It was reckless, it was call[o]us, it was w anton. A 16-year-old boy and a 20-year-old girl died. (V ol. IV at 616.) W ard argues the district court abused its discretion in allowing the government to refer to and introduce evidence of Long’s death because he was not charged with his death and it was not relevant to the charges against him. He suggests the government’s actual purpose in referring to Long’s death was to inflame the passion of the jury by attributing two deaths to him. W ard also contends that by questioning Dr. Floyd concerning Long’s fate and making statements in closing argument to the effect that W ard killed Long, the government abused the court’s ruling allowing it to refer to Long’s death in its opening statement. W e are comfortable w ith the trial court’s decision to permit the government to mention two deaths and explain why only one was charged. W e are less comfortable with the government’s conduct. On a cold record, it seems it made more of Long’s death than necessary for its announced purpose of placing events in context for the jury. But a trial judge is in a much better position to determine if the government exploited a legitimate purpose with ulterior motive and to assess the impact on the jury. The judge also instructed the jury that argument of counsel is not evidence. -22- Apparently, the jury was not inflamed— it acquitted on the murder charge. There was no abuse of discretion. In addition, the substantial evidence supporting W ard’s conviction for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine renders harmless any possible overreaching as it may relate to that charge. See supra, Section A(5).