Opinion ID: 4272324
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statement Regarding Incarceration

Text: Third, Steele asserts the Government deprived him of the right to a fair trial by informing the jury of his current incarceration. 5 At the threshold, Steele preserved this issue for appellate review. The overruling of a motion in limine is not usually sufficient to preserve an objection for appeal. United States v. Brown, 665 F.3d 1239, 1247 (11th Cir. 2011). However, Federal Rule of Evidence 103(b) has relieved the obligation to renew an objection at trial where the issue was definitively ruled upon in limine. Fed. R. Evid. 103(b) (“Once the court rules definitively on the record—either before or at trial—a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.”); United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1313 (11th Cir. 2015) (same). Here, Steele moved in limine to exclude the jail phone calls because references to his present incarceration were prejudicial. The district court delivered a definitive ruling admitting the phone calls. The issue is, therefore, preserved for review. The presumption of innocence, a basic component of the right to a fair trial, is impaired when the defendant is compelled to wear prison or jail clothing during trial, because such clothing serves as a “constant reminder of the accused’s condition,” which is “likely to be a continuing influence throughout the trial” on a 5 Typically, this Court reviews constitutional questions, including due process violations, de novo. United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir. 2008). But where the defendant has failed to object below, our review is for plain error. United States v. Gutierrez, 745 F.3d 463, 475 (11th Cir. 2014). 7 Case: 16-17719 Date Filed: 05/03/2018 Page: 8 of 12 juror’s judgment of the defendant. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 504-05 (1976). However, direct references to a defendant’s incarceration made during trial do not necessarily undermine the presumption of innocence such that they create a due process violation. United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051, 1058 (11th Cir. 1995). Specifically, “mere utterance[s] of the word[s] jail, prison, or arrest [do] not, without regard to context or circumstances, constitute reversible error per se.” Id. (brackets and quotation omitted). Where the comment “is brief, unelicited, and unresponsive, adding nothing to the government’s case,” an error worthy of granting a mistrial has not occurred. United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324, 1334 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court did not violate Steele’s due process rights by allowing the jury to hear testimony that he was incarcerated. Although the Government generally may not elicit testimony that a defendant is incarcerated, the comment at issue here was a passing remark made in the context of the Government’s attempt to establish a foundation for jail phone calls it wished to admit. See VillabonaGarnica, 63 F.3d at 1058. The single comment confirming Steele was incarcerated was not elicited to further prejudice Steele or to convince the jury that he was violent, nor did it create the same type of “continuing” reminder of Steele’s condition prohibited by Estelle. See Estelle, 425 U.S. at 503. Furthermore, the district court gave a limiting instruction prior to the testimony at the Government’s 8 Case: 16-17719 Date Filed: 05/03/2018 Page: 9 of 12 request, which the jury presumably followed. See United States v. Stone, 9 F.3d 934, 938 (11th Cir. 1993). Finally, Steele referred to his incarceration at some length, undermining the assertion that he was prejudiced by the Government’s lone remark. Although Steele takes the position that he needed to discuss his incarceration to provide the jury context, we note Steele discussed his imprisonment more than was needed to serve that limited purpose.