Opinion ID: 2264028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The prosecution's opening statement and the motion for a mistrial.

Text: In his opening statement for the government, the prosecutor began as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, on September 14, 2002, at 1015 Half Street, Southeast, in Washington, D.C., the defendant, Mr. Suheel Najafi, was running a business. He was selling drugs for a profit. He was selling ecstasy at the Nations Nightclub at that address. Now, at 3:30 in the morning on September 14, Mr. Najafi while running his business sold ecstasy tablets to an undercover police officer from the Metropolitan Police Department, Officer John McDonald. And at that point, the Metropolitan Police Department shut down Mr. Najafi's business. And how are you going to know these things? How are you going to know what kind of business Mr. Najafi was running that night? You will hear from those same officers who were at the Nations Nightclub back on September 14, 2002, those same eyewitnesses who observed Mr. Najafi conducting his business on that night. A few sentences later, the prosecutor told the jurors that those officers were there because they had information about drug trafficking at that address. [4] At the conclusion of the prosecutor's opening statement, Najafi's attorney made an oral motion for a mistrial: Your Honor, I am constrained to request a mistrial on the basis of that comment by [the prosecutor] about Mr. Najafi running a business. There is not going to be any evidence that he was running any sort of business, that if they had evidence of that, then that would be other crimes evidence that I should have gotten notice of, and didn't get notice of. I found his comments to be extremely prejudicial and object on that basis. I move for a mistrial.    My point would be as well in the case Mr. Najafi is running a business that would suggest that in addition to this particular sale there were other sales. The trial judge denied the defense motion because I think you can say this was a commercial venture business, a business deal. The judge pointed out that the offense of distribution of a controlled substance doesn't depend on whether there is consideration [or] compensation, and I think the prosecutor points out that he wasn't just distributing it, which would be a criminal offense, he was doing it for money which permits you to characterize it as a business operation. After the judge denied the defense motion for a mistrial, Najafi's attorney told the jury in his own opening statement that, contrary to the prosecutor's representation, there is not going to be any evidence of any business [or] of any ongoing enterprise by Mr. Najafi or anyone else. Thereafter, there was only one further reference during the remainder of the trial of the claim that Najafi was running a drug-selling business; during his closing argument, defense counsel stated: If you remember when the prosecution started this case, they said that Mr. Najafi was running a business and they wanted to shut down the business. Well, the only thing he appears to have been doing is watching the dancing below. That behavior I submit is innocent.[ [5] ] At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Najafi guilty as charged. This appeal followed.