Opinion ID: 810773
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: McClain’s Testimony

Text: During the government’s cross-examination of McClain, the following exchange took place: Q: Did you know you were going to pull a [robbery] that day? A: No, sir. Q: You’re the only one with a clean record? A: Yes, sir. Q: And you should have stayed home; do you remember saying that? A: I said stay home? No, sir. Augustus and Campbell objected to McClain’s affirmation that he was the only one with a clean record, arguing that the prosecutor was referring to McClain’s their motion for a mistrial that a curative instruction was discussed. 34 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 35 of 41 lack of a criminal record, thereby implying that all defendants except McClain had prior convictions. The prosecutor explained that he was simply referring to McClain’s driving record, and the district court agreed with the government.12 Nevertheless, the district court gave a curative instruction to the jury to disregard that statement. It is not clear from the context of the cross-examination what the prosecutor meant by “clean record.” Regardless of the prosecutor’s intent, however, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants’ motions for a mistrial, given the court’s curative instruction to the jury. We have recognized that, if the district court instructs the jury to disregard prejudicial evidence, “we will reverse only if the evidence is so highly prejudicial as to be incurable by the trial court’s admonition.” United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d 779, 787 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1352 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that this Court presumes the jury follows the district court’s instructions). Augustus and Campbell assert that 12 Earlier during trial, the government introduced evidence showing that Augustus did not want to be the driver for the planned robbery because his license was suspended, and that McClain was the driver of the gold Pontiac for the planned robbery because he possessed a driver’s license. More specifically, McClain testified that, on the day of the planned robbery, Augustus had asked him whether he wanted to drive the car and whether he had a driver’s license, and McClain agreed to drive the car. McClain’s sister testified that, based on her substantial experience riding with McClain, he had not received any traffic tickets, had never been pulled over, and had never been speeding. 35 Case: 10-13161 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 36 of 41 because McClain was the only defendant acquitted, his remark was necessarily prejudicial. However, unlike the scant evidence against McClain, the evidence against Augustus and Campbell was strong and convincing. As noted before, this evidence included testimony by the ATF agents involved in the investigation, recorded conversations, and physical evidence. We conclude that the defendants have not shown a “reasonable probability” that the trial’s outcome would have been different without McClain’s fleeting, and stricken, remark. See Emmanuel, 565 F.3d at 1334.