Opinion ID: 796140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hall's statement

Text: 79 On direct examination, the government was asking Hall about the activities in which he had seen Defendant Abdullah participate. The following exchange took place: 80 Q. What did you see Mr. Abdullah doing in that time frame, 2002 and 2003, in the neighborhood? 81 A. Selling crack. 82 Q. And how often would you see that? 83 A. It was real often. I had just got out of jail in 2002, so in 2003—I got out of jail in 2002, September 5—September 19 of '02. And when I got out there, he was really out there grinding. Then he went to jail. Then when he got out of jail— 84 Q. Just what you saw, Mr. Hall, out there. 85 J.A. at 1086-87. Defendant Abdullah's attorney requested a side-bar, where he moved for a mistrial. The district court denied the motion. 86 Applying the factors from Forrest, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant Abdullah's motion for a mistrial. At the side-bar, Defendant Abdullah admitted that the remark was unsolicited—in fact, the government cut Hall off immediately. The government's line of questioning, about what direct knowledge its witness had of Defendant Abdullah's drug dealing, was reasonable, relevant questioning not likely to result in information that was improperly prejudicial. Although no limiting instruction was given, Defendant Abdullah's trial strategy was to avoid calling attention to the statement. There is a paradoxical impossibility in asking an individual not to think about a particular fact, because that very request calls attention to the fact that is to be ignored. See Ferguson v. Knight, 809 F.2d 1239, 1243 (6th Cir.1987). This course of not drawing attention to the statement may be perfectly sound from a tactical standpoint, but, once undertaken, any objection to the lack of a limiting instruction should fall on deaf ears. 13 There is also no indication of bad faith on the part of the government. Finally, there was substantial evidence against Defendant Abdullah. All factors favor the government; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant Abdullah's motion for a mistrial.