Opinion ID: 822903
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Curative and Cautionary Instructions

Text: While the trial court issued general cautionary instructions about the defendant’s constitutional right not to testify at voir dire and again immediately before closing argument,40 the prosecutor’s comments followed those instructions. Moreover, although two of the prosecutor’s improper remarks were promptly followed by sustained objections and curative instructions, those instructions — telling the jury to “disregard” the comment — were perfunctory and devoid of specificity. Finally, the trial court did not sustain all of Gongora’s objections to the improper remarks. Specifically, the court overruled Gongora’s objection to the last of the improper comments, in which the prosecutor stated, “I’ll make it very clear. I’m not talking about, do you want to hear from him, because you can’t do that.” While as a general rule, juries are presumed to follow instructions given by the court,41 neither this court nor the Supreme Court has ever held that the mere fact that a curative or cautionary instruction was offered establishes harmlessness under Brecht.42 Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that “[t]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system to call attention to [the defendant’s] disruptive behavior during [the prosecutor’s] argument, and not to imply that he was harboring guilty secrets”). 40 The court’s instruction prior to closing argument read as follows: In a criminal case the law permits the Defendant to testify in his own behalf but he is not compelled to do so, and the same law provides that the fact that a defendant does not testify shall not be considered as a circumstance against him. You will, therefore, not consider the fact that the Defendant did not testify as a circumstance against him; and you will not during your deliberations allude to, comment on, or in any manner refer to the fact that the Defendant has not testified. 41 See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540–41 (1993). 42 See, e.g., Johnston, 127 F.3d at 398. 19 No. 07-70031 cannot be ignored.”43 Here, the efficacy of the trial court’s initial cautionary instructions was diminished by the lack of a strong admonishment following the statements, the fact that the cautionary instruction preceded the problematic statements, the court’s overruling of Gongora’s objection to the prosecutor’s final remark on his silence, and the mixed message resulting from allowing the jury to consider the comments in some respects.