Opinion ID: 2966437
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Reginald Hayden's Request for a Mistrial

Text: The defendants--individually--also raise a number of grounds for appeal. Reginald contends that the district court erred by failing to declare a mistrial after a government witness mentioned his prior imprisonment. Monique Taylor, Reginald's daughter, mentioned during her testimony that Reginald had been in prison. 2 The defense immediately objected and the district judge instructed the jury to dis- regard Taylor's testimony.3 Reginald's counsel moved for a mistrial which the district judge denied. _________________________________________________________________ 2 The precise colloquy proceeded as follows: Q. Did Mr. James Hayden come and stay with you with your permission-- A. Yeah. Q. -- for a few days early in the spring? A. Yeah. Q. When was that? A. I think it was around March 5th. It was after my birthday, two days after my birthday. Q. And his reason for being in town was what? A. He had came because my father had just got out of prison. He came to, you know, see how -- 3 The district judge cautioned: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, disregard the statement of why Mr. James was down to see Reginald Taylor or Reginald Hayden. That should not have come out in the evidence and I just ask you to disregard it. 6 As stated earlier, we review a district court's refusal to grant a mistrial for abuse of discretion. West, 877 F.2d at 287-88. In order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, the defendants must show prejudice. Id. at 288. In similar cases, where a passing and brief remark was made referencing a prior criminal record, but then a curative instruction was issued, the Fourth Circuit has held that no prejudice exists . . . if the jury could make [an] individual guilt determination by following the court's cautionary instructions. United States v. Dorsey, 45 F.3d 809, 816 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 2631 (1995). Indeed, the court has recognized that: [w]hile we have reversed convictions in cases where evidence of other crimes had been improperly presented, in those cases the inadmissible evidence was not only prejudicial, but had been purposely introduced by the prosecution . . . Absent such misconduct on the part of the Government counsel, the courts generally have discerned no reversible error where the trial court has acted promptly in sustaining an objection and advising the jury to disregard the testimony. Id. at 817 (citation omitted). The remark was brief, not repeated, and the trial court immediately sustained an objection and advised the jury to discount the testimony. The defendants, however, allege that the remark came out in response to a leading question by the prosecutor. We do not find that the remark was made in response to a leading question; nor do we find that Reginald suffered any prejudice in light of the cautionary instructions. 7