Opinion ID: 414405
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudice from Exclusion of Self Defense

Text: 33 Nolan argues that the admission of details about the shooting required the court to allow evidence of self defense. He asserts that the court should have granted a mistrial. 34 Before trial, the court ordered the government to limit evidence relating to the July 11 shooting. The court specifically warned the government to instruct its witnesses to omit any reference to events of July 11 that might be prejudicial. 35 Despite these warnings, one officer testifying for the government stated that someone had been shot and that there had been victims of the shooting. Although the court issued prompt curative instructions, Nolan argues that the testimony tainted the entire trial. Absent any evidence of self defense, the jury was left with knowledge of a shooting, Nolan's possession of a gun, and victims of the crime. 36 Before concluding that Nolan suffered prejudice, we must consider the court's curative instructions. 37 We assume that juries follow admonitions and curative instructions. United States v. Johnson, 618 F.2d 60, 62 (9th Cir.1980). As we indicated in Johnson, we weigh the force and delivery of the instruction against the prejudice generated by the evidence. To determine the prejudice, we compare the probative force of the inadmissible evidence with that of the admissible evidence that supports the verdict. The trial judge's determination of the prejudicial impact of evidence must be accorded deference. United States v. Sanford, 673 F.2d 1070, 1073 (9th Cir.1982). 38 The court cautioned the prosecutor twice during the officer's testimony and twice told the jury to disregard mention of any details of the shooting. The court reiterated the presumption of innocence in Nolan's favor, and reminded the jury that they were concerned only with possession or receipt of firearms charges. The court then delivered curative instructions forcefully and did what it could to limit the prejudicial effect of the officer's testimony. 39 We next consider the prejudicial impact of the officer's statements. Although the news that Nolan shot someone created a likelihood of prejudice, the officer indicated also that Nolan may have shot in self defense. The proof against Nolan on this count was overwhelming. We have little question that the jury would have convicted him regardless of any mention of victims of a shooting. 40 Given the court's forceful instructions and the weight of the evidence against Nolan, we conclude the court correctly declined to grant a mistrial.