Opinion ID: 349452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Conduct During Trial

Text: 22 Appellant Wesley makes two claims of prejudicial misconduct on the part of the prosecution that, it is argued, should have resulted in a duly requested mistrial. Prosecution witness March was asked on his second redirect examination whether he had entered a witness protection program; he apparently did not answer. In context, this question was proper. Defense counsel had sought to undercut March's credibility on the previous cross-examination by establishing that he was receiving $36 per day from the Government, that he was free and could come and go as (he) please(d), and that his bail had been set for a low $1,000. Defense counsel had also read from the transcript of a hearing at which a federal drug agent had testified about a conversation with March; it there came out that March had once been sitting with several other witnesses . . . apparently under witness protection in other cases that he had gotten to know. Thus the door had been left at least ajar by the defense for the prosecutor's question. See United States v. Finkelstein, 526 F.2d 517, 527 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 960, 96 S.Ct. 1742, 48 L.Ed.2d 205 (1976); United States v. Tramunti, supra, 513 F.2d at 1118; United States v. Cirillo, 468 F.2d 1233, 1240 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 989, 93 S.Ct. 1501, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973). 23 Wesley also argues that questions asked prosecution witness Ellis as to where Paul DiGregorio had gone, eliciting an answer that he had gone to jail, involved serious misconduct. But the court instructed the jury just after the question had been asked that DiGregorio was not on trial and to forget the rest. Moreover, the Government's opening had referred, without objection, to Pugliese's and DiGregorio's going to jail, and the witness Pannirello had been permitted to testify that Pugliese went to jail. Given the fact that none of the appellants were alleged to have associated directly with DiGregorio, it is difficult to see how they could have been prejudiced significantly by mention of his having gone to jail.