Opinion ID: 552246
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mississippi Incident

Text: 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.