Opinion ID: 3034347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of Requested Mistrial

Text: During his cross-examination of O’Neal, Allen’s counsel asked O’Neal how often he had seen Allen, and O’Neal responded “When he got out of jail.” Allen immediately made 5 Nor does the admission of these statements implicate Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). Bruton precludes the admission of a defendant’s confession implicating a co-defendant during a joint trial. Id. at 123-24, 135-37. However, that is not the situation before us. Washington, having pled guilty, was not a co-defendant in Allen’s trial, and Washington’s statement to O’Neal about whom Washington had recruited was not a confession; rather, it was a statement made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus not barred by Bruton. See United States v. McCown, 711 F.2d 1441, 1448 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding Bruton inapplicable to statements made by a co-conspirator in furtherance of a conspiracy.). Additionally, to the extent that O’Neal’s statement to Taglioretti occurred during O’Neal’s confession, O’Neal was not a codefendant, having pled guilty, and was also subjected to cross-examination at Allen’s trial. UNITED STATES v. ALLEN 14329 a motion for a mistrial. The government agreed that O’Neal’s answer should be stricken and insisted that the court admonish the jury to disregard it. The court did so and denied Allen’s motion. Allen appeals the denial of his motion. We review the district court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Allen, 341 F.3d 870, 891 (9th Cir. 2003). [5] We conclude that the district court acted within its discretion. O’Neal’s isolated reference to Allen’s prior incarceration did not warrant a mistrial. See United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1540 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[I]solated references to [defendant’s] prior prison record did not warrant a mistrial.”), and any resulting prejudice dissipated when the district court immediately gave a curative instruction to the jury. See United States v. Parks, 285 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding no abuse of discretion when the district court denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial because the district court “admonished the jury to disregard the statement.”). Moreover, there was overwhelming evidence of Allen’s guilt, so any error was harmless. See, e.g., Allen, 341 F.3d at 892 (affirming the denial of a motion for a mistrial because there was ample evidence of defendant’s guilt.).