Opinion ID: 52060
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comments about Defendant’s Incarceration

Text: Bradley first argues that he was denied a fair trial when the jury was 23 informed several times that he was in custody during trial. Bradley claims that he was denied a fair trial, because: (1) the district court judge made remarks which informed the jury that he was incarcerated;4 (2) Michael Davis testified that Blasingame threatened him in jail;5 and (3) Herbert Durham testified that he had 4 The following exchange occurred in open court in the presence of the prospective jury panel: Court: Have a seat. I want to ask the marshals, why did it take so long to bring the defendants up? Marshal: There was a mix-up, Your Honor, probably on my part. I left earlier to get something and finish it, and I didn’t realize I was suppose to come back. Court: Do you want to apologize to the jury? Marshal: I apologize, Your Honor. The following exchange occurred in open court in the presence of the jury: AUSA Sam-Buchanan: The government calls Michael Davis to the stand. Court: If any member of the jury needs a break at any time in the next five, ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, let me know and we will take a short break, but it looks like we’re going to go until about 5:15 today. AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Your Honor, apparently, the witness is still on the way up. Court: All right. The witness is on the way up? AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Yes. He is not up here yet. Court: All right. All right. Is he in custody? AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Yes, he is in custody. Court: Well, lets wait a couple of minutes to see if he shows up. The following is an excerpt of the district court’s cautionary instructions to the jury: Before I give you the charge I do want to make one point to you, and that is you might have noticed in the trial a number of Marshals at various times in the courtroom; at one time, I think we had as many as six. They wore plain clothes, maybe you didn’t recognize them, but they were over here and there in the back and inside the bar, but that has absolutely no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the defendants and you shouldn’t consider that in any way. As a matter of fact, they were here primarily because we has a number of witnesses who were in custody . . . . 5 The following is an excerpt from Davis’s direct examination: AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury about that conversation? Davis: We had a brief meeting in the hallway and he expressed to me that he read my testimony and he knew what I said and if I testified, I’d better stay in jail or he would kill me. 24 visited Bradley in jail.6 Bradley also contends that the combination of these incidents amounted to a constant reminder that he was incarcerated, which deprived him of the presumption of innocence. A presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is a basic element of a fair trial in our system of justice. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503, 96 S.Ct. 1691,1692, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). That presumption of innocence is impaired and an accused’s right to a fair trial is violated when the accused is required to attend trial in prison clothing. Id. at 504, 96 S.Ct. at1693, 48 L.Ed.2d 126. See also United States v. Harris, 703 F.2d 508, 509-11 (11th Cir. 1983)(right to a fair trial impaired AUSA Sam-Buchanan: What did you say? Davis: I didn’t exchange words with him at all. The following is an excerpt from Davis’s cross-examination: Pate: Finally, Mr. Davis, you testified that at some point, Mr. Blasingame told you you’d better stay in jail and not testify; is that an accurate statement? Davis: Pretty much accurate. Pate: Okay. And you say this occurred in the hallway; were you all at the jail at the time? Davis: (No response.) Pate: It’s okay in response to my question if you answer that truthfully. Davis: Yes. 6 The following is an excerpt from Durham’s cross-examination: AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Now, you have talked to Mr. Bradley recently, have you not? Durham: Yes. AUSA Sam-Buchanan: And he would sometimes call you collect? Durham: Right. AUSA Sam-Buchanan: And have you visited him at the jail? Durham: Yes. AUSA Sam-Buchanan: Now – Durham: I’ve visited both of them. 25 when defendant was compelled to attend voir dire in prison clothing). Further, we have previously noted that whether the jury directly learns of a defendant’s incarceration from testimony or infers the fact from a defendant’s clothing is of no consequence. United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051, 1058 (11th Cir. 1995). Yet, “the mere utterance” of the words jail or prison does not automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial. United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136, 139-40 (11th Cir. 1983)(quoting United States v. Barcenas, 498 F.2d 1110, 1113 (5th Cir. 1974)). Rather, it is the “constant reminder of the accused’s condition” that is “so likely to be a continuing influence throughout the trial” that presents an “unacceptable risk” to the presumption of innocence. Estelle, 425 at 504-05, 96 S.Ct. at 1693, 48 L.Ed.2d 126. Even assuming that the comments and testimony complained of either directly informed the jury of defendant’s incarceration or allowed the jury to infer the fact, the comments and testimony, individually do not raise to the level of a “constant reminder.” The court’s initial comments at most caused the jury to speculate about whether the defendant was incarcerated, and the court’s cautionary instructions to the jury specifically attributed the increased presence of United States Marshals to the incarcerated witnesses. These comments were not only brief, but required the jury to make several inferential steps to conclude the defendant 26 was in custody. Likewise, any comments that indicated Bradley was incarcerated from either Davis’s testimony or Durham’s testimony were also brief passing comments. None of these comments rise to the level of reversible error. See United States v. Beasley, 2 F.3d 1551, 1559 (11th Cir. 1993 ) (no reversible error because witness’s response to a question on cross-examination that he met the defendant in prison was a passing remark followed by a curative instruction); United States v. Morcovic, 911 F.2d 613, 616 (11th Cir. 1990)(“It is almost frivolous to argue that a mistrial should have been granted because three jurors saw the defendants in handcuffs when they were being removed--especially since the court gave cautionary instructions.”). Furthermore, these four brief comments, which do not independently amount to reversible error, do not combine to create a “constant reminder” of the defendant’s incarceration. Even considering the combined effect of these comments, they were nevertheless brief and occurred sporadically over the course of a multi-day trial. They simply do not amount to a “constant reminder” or rise to the level of reversible error.