Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Disputed Evidence

Text: 26 Prior to trial, the district court warned the prosecutor about the use of evidence of other wrongs. IX R. at 60-62. Specifically, the court warned the prosecutor that evidence about the propensity of some of the defendants to carry pistols and automatic weapons was evidence of other crimes, and as such was not relevant unless you can get around it some way.... Id. at 60. The court instructed the prosecutor to talk with your witnesses about that, and about all other 404(b) material they might be prone to testify about. Id. at 60-61. Following a noon recess, the court again warned the prosecutor about the use of Rule 404(b) evidence. Id. at 64. 10 27 The prosecution sought to introduce testimony regarding three events: (1) Eugene Fisher's alleged participation in an amphetamine cook in Mississippi; (2) the investigating agents' fear that Jim Wright might be guarding the lab site with a sniper rifle, and the corresponding fact that the arresting officers were heavily armed when they raided the lab; and (3) Russell Sullivan's alleged possession of a firearm and holster in Irving, Texas. In each case, testimony concerning these events reached the jury either because the trial court admitted the testimony over the defendants' objection or, as was more often the case, because the prosecutor elicited improper references to those events despite sustained objections to the testimony and in disregard of the district court's repeated admonitions to avoid such testimony. In every such instance, the defendants unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial.
28 The first reference to the alleged Mississippi incident was elicited by the prosecutor about half way through the direct examination of the prosecution's third witness, informant Steve Howell. He was recounting a late night conversation he had with Russell and Mary Sullivan when the prosecutor asked whether Fisher's Aunt Millie was present during the course of the conversation. Defense counsel objected on the ground of relevance, which objection was sustained. IX R. at 528-29. However, the prosecutor persisted: 29 Q. Well, did anyone else participate in the conversation, actually say things other than you and Russ and Mary? 30 A. No. 31 Q. Did you talk at all with Millie? 32 A. Yes. 33 Q. And what did you talk with Millie about? 34 Id. at 529. Defense counsel again objected, and the court again questioned the relevancy of the testimony. This time, however, the court overruled defense counsel's objection on the prosecutor's representation that Millie was an unindicted and unnamed coconspirator. Id. at 529-30. The prosecutor then asked Mr. Howell what he spoke with Millie about. Howell answered, we talked about when Eugene went to Mississippi to cook. Id. at 530 (emphasis added). Defense counsel immediately moved for a mistrial. 35 The court expressed amazement at the prosecutor's effort to inject such evidence into the case. Id. at 531-532. The court twice noted that the evidence was unnecessary to the government's case, and again asked the prosecutor why he thought it was relevant. The prosecutor answered, because I think it's part of the history of the conspiracy. Id. at 533. The judge ultimately ruled in favor of admissibility, but expressed grave doubts as to the relevancy of the testimony and refused to give a cautionary instruction because the judge believed the damage had been done. 11 The court did not expressly rule on defense counsel's motion for a mistrial. 36 Near the end of the trial, the prosecutor returned again to the alleged Mississippi cook and referred to amounts of ammunition present there. 12 Defense counsel objected. The court sustained the objection, but declined to hear defense counsel's motion for a mistrial until the jury was excused for the day. Id. at 1846. Later, counsel moved for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecutor had again referred to the Mississippi incident, in violation of the court's previous order. Id. at 1895-96. The prosecutor again argued that the Mississippi incident was part of the history of the conspiracy and that defense counsel had opened the door by asking the defendant if he knew anything about drugs, or if he knew how to manufacture them. Id. at 1896. The court rejected the prosecution arguments and again admonished the prosecutor to stay away from the events that allegedly occurred in Mississippi. XVI R. at 1897-98. 37 Despite the admonitions, the prosecutor again referred to the alleged Mississippi cook during his closing argument. XVII R. at 2178. 13 Defense counsel again unsuccessfully moved for a mistrial after the prosecutor's closing argument. Id. at 2246-47.
38 Another category of allegedly improper testimony concerns two witnesses' references to the possibility that Jim Wright might be acting as a sniper in the vicinity of the lab site, and related testimony that the arresting officers were heavily armed when they made the lab site arrests. The defendants argue, and the district court apparently agreed, that the prosecution's repeated references to fear of a sniper, despite sustained objections and admonitions from the court, unfairly prejudiced the defendants. 39 The subject first came up during the prosecutor's direct examination of Officer Duncan, one of the arresting officers. Duncan testified that I planned to go into the situation with a full force raid team ... [because] one of the suspects, Mr. Wright, was supposed to be in the woods with a sniper rifle. XI R. at 710. Defense counsel immediately objected on the basis of hearsay. Id. The court sustained the objection and, during a bench conference, observed that the evidence was both unnecessary and could not have been offered for any other reason than to try to prejudice the defendants, stating the evidence was just more prejudicial than probative. Id. at 710-11 (emphasis added). 14 Defense counsel's motion for a mistrial, however, was denied. Id. at 713. 40 After the bench conference, the prosecutor requested permission to confer with Officer Duncan, presumably to advise him of the court's ruling and admonition. However, during cross-examination Duncan again stated that, We had been told that Jimmy Wright was the sniper in this deal, that he was supposed to be out in the woods and he would cover from the woods periodically. Tr. XII at 863-64. The answer was admittedly unresponsive, and counsel requested an appropriate admonishment from the court. The judge cautioned the witness to merely answer the questions, but did not strike the testimony or admonish the jury to disregard it. Id. at 864. 41 The subject arose again during the prosecution's direct examination of Agent Means. The prosecutor had returned to the subject of the raid on the drug lab and Agent Means said that because he was fearful that a sniper may be concealed in the woods, he sent four or five men into the woods 30 to 40 minutes before his main assault team went in. Id. The court sustained defense counsel's timely objection on the ground that the testimony was cumulative. Id. at 102-03.
42 A further claim of the prosecutor's improper use of evidence concerns testimony that Russell Sullivan was in possession of a gun and holster in Irving, Texas, an act not alleged in the indictment. The first reference to the incident occurred on the first day of trial, during the direct examination of Evelyn Rogers. She testified that during a visit by the Sullivans to her home in Irving, Texas, Russell Sullivan had carried a firearm. X R. at 367-68. The court sustained defense counsel's objection on the ground of relevance. Id. at 371. Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor showed Mrs. Rogers a holster that had been marked for identification, but not yet admitted into evidence. Id. at 382. While laying a foundation for the holster's admission, the prosecutor asked Mrs. Rogers where she had seen it before. Mrs. Rogers responded that she had seen the holster in Russell Sullivan's possession at Irving, Texas. Id. at 382-83. Defense counsel requested that her testimony be stricken and that the jury be admonished to disregard it. Id. The prosecutor acknowledged that counsel's request should be granted in view of the court's earlier ruling. Id. at 384. The court sustained the objection, but denied defense counsel's request for a mistrial. Instead, the court ordered the testimony stricken from the record and cautioned the jury to disregard it. Id. at 387. 43 The last reference to Russell Sullivan's possession of a gun in Irving, Texas, occurred during the government's direct examination of informant Steve Howell. The witness identified a photograph of a .38 caliber revolver which he said was in Russell Sullivan's possession in Irving. XI R. at 581. After a bench conference, the court admitted the evidence over the objection of defense counsel on the prosecutor's representation that the witness would eventually place the gun at the lab site. Id. at 584. 15 44 Russell Sullivan argues that the prosecutor's repeated efforts to elicit testimony concerning his possession of a gun in Irving, Texas, constituted prosecutorial misconduct which deprived him of a fair trial. The premise of his argument is that the evidence was inadmissible because it concerned an event not charged in the indictment and which did not occur in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Sullivan argues that the prosecutor's repeated efforts to elicit such testimony was improper in light of the trial court's admonition to the prosecutor not to bring up evidence of other crimes, including testimony about the propensity of some of the defendants to carry firearms. See IX R. at 60. 45 At trial, the prosecutor argued that the evidence was admissible because it tended to prove an essential element of the offense charged in Count 4 of the indictment, namely possession of a firearm during and in relation to the 1988 conspiracy. In its brief, however, the government simply asserts that the evidence is admissible under Rules 403 and 404 for all the same reasons [as] the Mississippi incident, and that none of the defendants has shown prejudice which could negate a finding of harmless error. Appellee's Joint Brief at 67.