Opinion ID: 795681
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Prosecution's Reference to the Suppression Ruling

Text: 59 Washington contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the Government engaged in misconduct when it referred to the district court's denial of Washington's suppression motion in front of the jury. Washington objected to the reference at trial, and the court denied his motion for a mistrial and his subsequent motion for a new trial. 60 As a general matter, we review claims of prosecutorial misconduct for harmless error when the defendant objects at trial. United States v. Blueford, 312 F.3d 962, 973-74 (9th Cir.2002). When there are allegations of prosecutorial misconduct, we review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's denial of a motion for a mistrial and denial of a motion for a new trial. United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1140 (9th Cir.2002). 61 The Government concedes that it was error to reference the court's denial of the motion to suppress Washington's post-arrest statements, but contends that the reference did not prejudice Washington. We agree. The Government's reference to the suppression motion was vague and not something that a jury would be likely to understand. The Government made no reference to the voluntariness of Washington's statements, much less the reliability or veracity of those statements. It was defense counsel, not the Government, who referred to voluntariness and accurateness before the jury. 62 Moreover, the judge acted to prevent any prejudice. A judge's prompt corrective action in response to improper comments usually is sufficient to cure any problems arising from such improper comments. See United States v. Younger, 398 F.3d 1179, 1192 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the prosecutor's misconduct in referring to the court's pre-trial ruling was harmless because the court's swift corrective action prevented the prosecutor's improper comments from materially affecting the verdict); United States v. McChristian, 47 F.3d 1499, 1507-08 (9th Cir.1995). When Washington's counsel objected to the Government's reference to the suppression ruling, the judge promptly instructed the jury to disregard the ruling. The judge also instructed the jury that arguments and statements by attorneys are not evidence and that questions and objections by attorneys are not evidence. In addition, the judge provided instructions that made it clear that the jury was responsible for evaluating Washington's post-arrest statements, explicitly telling the jury to decide how much weight to give Washington's statements and to consider all the evidence about the statements, including the circumstances under which the defendant may have made it. We therefore hold that the error was harmless and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Washington a mistrial and a new trial. 63