Opinion ID: 55788
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parole status statements

Text: This court reviews for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a motion for a mistrial based on the admission of prejudicial testimony. United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 844 (5th Cir.1998). In situations where the jury hears prejudicial information, a new trial is required only if there is a significant possibility that the prejudicial evidence had a substantial impact upon the jury verdict, viewed in light of the entire record. Id. Le and the government agreed prior to trial to stipulate to Le's prior felony conviction. After the close of the government's case-in-chief, a statement was read to the jury which indicated that the parties agree[d] to stipulate that the defendant had been convicted of a felony punishable by more than one year imprisonment, prior to July 31st, 2003, the date of the offense at issue. During the trial, Le's parole status was mentioned three times. First, during opening statements, the government stated that Le knew he needed to rid himself of the gun because of his parole status. Le did not object. Second, a police detective testified for the government that Le said he couldn't have [a firearm] because he was on parole. Le objected, the government did not dispute the objection, and the court sustained the objection. The court did not, however, direct the jury to disregard the statement at the time nor did Le request that the court do so. Third, the government stated during closing argument that Le had originally wanted to flee the scene because the police were en route and he knew he should not have the gun because he was on parole. After objection and discussion at the bench, Le's counsel decided against a curative instruction but instead moved for a mistrial, which was denied. Le's counsel declined the opportunity for the court to direct the jury to ignore the statement, stating that this would draw even more attention to the information. Le argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the government mentioned that he was on parole when he committed the offense. These three references were a very small part of the trial. The jury heard testimony from various witnesses that Le brandished a firearm on at least two occasions during the evening, and the police recovered a gun from a location Le was seen near after the altercations occurred. Furthermore, the reference to Le's parole status during opening statements went by without objection. At this point the jury had the information. The testimony objection was sustained. Le's counsel declined a curative instruction regarding the closing argument statement. The references to Le's parole status did not have a substantial impact upon the jury's verdict. Paul, 142 F.3d at 844. We reject this basis for reversal.