Opinion ID: 773307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Statement by Prosecutor

Text: 5 The defendants contend that the district court erred by denying their motions for mistrial based on an improper statement made by the prosecutor. We review the denial of motions for mistrial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wadlington, 233 F.3d 1067, 1077 (8th Cir. 2000). A mistrial is called for when the prosecutor's remark was both in fact improper and 'prejudicially affected the defendant['s] substantial rights so as to deprive [him] of a fair trial.' Id. (quoting United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211, 1215 (8th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted)). 6 During trial, a government witness testified about a statement that Ross had made to him. After defense counsel made a hearsay objection, the prosecutor asserted that the defendant had murdered the witness (referring to Ross), and that therefore the statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6), which allows the admission of hearsay evidence of the statements of an unavailable declarant against a party who caused the unavailability through wrongdoing. After overruling the hearsay objection, the district court instructed the jury that the statement had been admitted conditionally and that its ruling did not mean that the court believed that the defendants had caused Ross to be murdered. 7 We conclude that the prosecutor's remark was not improper, because it merely reiterated the government's theory of the case and provided legal support for the admissibility of the proffered statement. Even if the remark was improper, we are satisfied that the court's instruction was sufficient to cure any potential unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions for mistrial.