Opinion ID: 717992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pedrioli

Text: 71 We review the trial court's denial of a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. George, 56 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.1995). We apply the fair assurance standard, discusses at length above, in evaluating any improper admission of evidence. Brooke, 4 F.3d at 1488. 72
73 Detective McNeff volunteered the information that Pedrioli was a known bank robber who was on parole at the time of the subject bank robbery. As we noted above, these remarks constitute improper prior bad conduct evidence and are inadmissible against Pedrioli. Again, the record indicates and defendant's counsel acknowledged that the prosecutor did not elicit the testimony in bad faith. The court struck the McNeff testimony and told the jury to disregard it. 74 We reject Pedrioli's contention that the impact of the offending testimony was so highly prejudicial when measured against the frailty of the government's case as to mandate a reversal of the conviction. 75 When the district court cures the error and there is strong evidence of defendant's guilt, we are not required to reverse a conviction even it the inappropriate remarks result in some prejudice to the defendant. United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d at 1539 (citing United States v. Parker, 549 F.2d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 971 (1977). The Aichele case, discussed above, guides our analysis. If the case against the defendant is very strong, though not overwhelming, and the reviewing court is unconvinced that the admission of the evidence influenced the outcome of the case, the court may uphold the verdict. Aichele, 941 F.2d at 765. 76 We acknowledge that the McNeff remark, despite the fact that it was not admitted into evidence and may have been cured by the jury instruction, still may have resulted in some prejudice to Pedrioli. Nevertheless, we find that the circumstantial evidence against Pedrioli and the eyewitness identification made a very strong case for the government. 6 For the jury to find that defendant was not involved in the robbery, the jury would have to find the following facts as coincidences: four employees mistakenly pick defendant out of a photo lineup; defendant's mother's car was used as the getaway vehicle; defendant was in the company of the driver of the getaway car when arrested; defendant was at the home of the sister of the getaway driver, whom he never met before; the police found money and a weapon related to the robbery inside the house where defendant was found. 77 We also consider relevant the district court's view of the context of the error in determining whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. See United States v. Sanchez-Robles, 927 F.2d at 1077. The district court considered the impact of the McNeff remark after hearing nearly all of the evidence regarding the robbery and chose the remedy of admonishing the jury. This was not an improper course to follow. 78 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding insufficient prejudice to have necessitated a mistrial or requiring a new trial.
79 Pedrioli also contends that the district court's admonishment to the jury to disregard the remarks of Detective McNeff confirmed the accuracy of that testimony and further prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial. 80 Pedrioli's attorney inquired if he could suggest a proper instruction and the court responded in the affirmative. However, counsel never suggested an instruction. Accordingly, because the defendant did not object, we review the jury instruction only for plain error. Arias-Villanueva, 998 F.2d 1491. 81 We concluded above that the district court's instruction did not constitute plain error as to Glover. For similar reasons, especially given the strength of the case against Pedrioli, we find that the jury instruction was not a plain error affecting substantial rights as to Pedrioli. After considering the strength of the government's case, we find that the improper testimony, not admitted for consideration by the jury, did not influence the outcome of Pedrioli's case. 82 AFFIRMED.