Opinion ID: 2977011
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questioning of Coconspirators

Text: Defendant argues that the district court erred in permitting the government to question Personne McGhee, Clady McGhee, and Temeka Halliburton, co-conspirators who testified as government witnesses, about the fact that they had entered into plea agreements. At the beginning of trial, defendant objected to the government questioning witnesses about pleading guilty to a conspiracy with which defendant was charged. The court permitted the government to refer to the guilty pleas in its opening statement. Later, Personne McGhee was questioned concerning his guilty plea to conspiracy and bringing drugs into the institution. Clady McGhee and Halliburton were also asked about their guilty pleas. Evidentiary rulings of the district court are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lloyd, 462 F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir. 2006). “Evidence that a coconspirator has been convicted of conspiring with a criminal defendant is generally inadmissible, because it might lead the jury to ‘regard the issue of the remaining defendant’s guilt as settled and [conclude that] the trial is a mere formality.’” United States v. Modena, 302 F.3d 9 626, 631 (6th Cir. 2002)(quoting United States v. Griffin, 778 F.2d 707, 711 (11th Cir. 1985)). However, if the coconspirator testifies at trial, evidence of the coconspirator’s prior convictions may be introduced so that the jury can accurately assess his credibility. Id. If the evidence is admitted, the district court must instruct the jury that it may not consider the coconspirator’s prior conspiracy conviction as evidence of the defendant’s guilt. United States v. Sanders, 95 F.3d 449, 454 (6th Cir. 1996)(“When a guilty plea or conviction is introduced into evidence, the district court is required to give a cautionary instruction to the effect that the jury may use the conviction or guilty plea only to determine the testifying witness’s credibility.”). In this case, the three coconspirators testified at trial as witnesses for the government. The government was properly permitted to question them on direct examination about their guilty pleas and conspiracy convictions “in order to ‘remove the sting’ of any attempt to impeach [their] credibility with [their] conviction[s] on cross-examination.” Modena, 302 F.3d at 632; see also Sanders, 95 F.3d at 454 (holding that guilty pleas of government witnesses were properly admitted for credibility purposes). The district court gave a cautionary instruction to the jury during Personne McGhee’s testimony: As part of that testimony, you heard evidence that Mr. McGhee pled guilty to certain charges in this crime. You may not consider that fact, in other words, his guilty plea, as evidence of Ms. Stapleton’s guilt or Ms. Mims’s guilt, it may only be used to assess the credibility of Mr. McGhee’s testimony in terms of the weight that you would give to Mr. McGhee’s testimony. At the conclusion of the case, the district court again instructed 10 the jury, “The fact that Personne McGhee, Clady McGhee, and Temeka Halliburton have pleaded guilty to a crime is not evidence that the defendants are guilty, and you cannot consider this against the defendants in any way.” These cautionary instructions were adequate to ensure that the jury did not use this evidence for an improper purpose.
Defendant also argues that the district court should have granted her motion for a mistrial made during Personne McGhee’s testimony. During his direct testimony, McGhee was questioned by the government about his motive for testifying in the case. He was asked, “Does your testimony here today violate any sort of inmate code?” He responded, “Yes.” He stated that by testifying, his life might be threatened by other inmates at the institution. When asked why he was putting his life at risk by testifying, McGhee responded, “Because I didn’t want to put my mother at risk to have to come in here and testify against me. And I wouldn’t had [sic] to be here if all parties involved just admitted guilt when they knew they was [sic] guilty.” Counsel for defendant then moved for a mistrial, objecting to the witness’s suggestion “that my client should have plead guilty as well because they’re both charged with the same conspiracy[.]” The district court denied the motion for a mistrial, finding that it was appropriate for the government to question a testifying coconspirator about the fact that he had pleaded guilty. The district court’s ruling on the motion for a mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Harris, 165 F.3d 1062, 1066 (6th Cir. 1999). In determining whether improper 11 witness statements affected the substantial rights of the defendant so as to warrant a new trial, the factors to be considered are: (1) whether the government’s line of inquiry was reasonable and justified by the circumstances of the witness being questioned; (2) whether there was any showing that the government acted in bad faith or otherwise deliberately injected the witness’s stray remarks; (3) whether the remarks were detailed or of major importance when compared with the other evidence against the defendant; and (4) whether a curative instruction was sought or given. Id.; United States v. Terry, 729 F.2d 1063, 1070 (6th Cir. 1984). In this case, the government’s line of inquiry was reasonable under the circumstances. Counsel for the government indicated that they wanted to bring out the fact that McGhee’s motive for testifying was to help his mother avoid jail time for his actions in getting her involved in the offense. Government counsel indicated that they did not know or anticipate that McGhee was going to make the statement about other defendants choosing not to plea guilty, nor did they prompt him to make the statement. This representation is bolstered by the fact that Personne McGhee was not a seasoned law enforcement officer, but a lay witness. The remark was isolated, rather than being “part of a pattern indicative of bad faith,” and the stray remark constituted only a small part of the testimony against defendant. Harris, 165 F.3d at 1066. Finally, the district court also gave a prompt cautionary instruction to the jury regarding McGhee’s comment. After informing the jury that McGhee’s guilty plea could not be considered as evidence of defendant’s guilt, the court instructed 12 the jury: Furthermore, you as a jury are instructed to disregard any comment that the witness might have made on his personal opinions about what other defendants should do in this case. That comment was inappropriate and you should simply just disregard the comment that he made about what other defendants perhaps should do in this case. The court also gave an instruction on the presumption of innocence. Juries are presumed to understand and follow such directions from the court. United States v. Forrest, 17 F.3d 916, 920-21 (6th Cir. 1994)(citing United States v. Sivils, 960 F.2d 587, 594 (6th Cir. 1992)). Considering the relevant factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Moore, 376 F.3d 570, 575 (6th Cir. 2004)(denial of mistrial upheld where single comment was not “of major import” when compared with other evidence, and district court immediately admonished the jury to disregard the comment); Harris, 165 F.3d at 1066 (district court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial where stray remark constituted minuscule part of evidence against defendant, line of questioning was reasonable, the government did not intentionally elicit reference to prior arrest, and court gave an immediate and clear limiting instruction); Forrest, 17 F.3d at 921 (mistrial not warranted in light of clear admonition by judge and ample evidence of guilt); United States v. Hernandez, 873 F.2d 925, 928 (6th Cir. 1989)(denial of mistrial upheld where improper reference to arrest was unsolicited, government’s line of questioning was reasonable, limiting instruction was immediate, clear, and forceful, and reference was only a small part of evidence against defendant). 13