Opinion ID: 672340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Racial Comments

Text: 27 Appellants claim that the prosecutor impermissibly injected race into the case during the redirect of Schell wherein the following exchange occurred: 28 PROSECUTOR: You responded to some questions related to pressure from Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Marino about money that was owed, do you recall those questions? 29 SCHELL: Yes. 30 PROSECUTOR: What type of pressure, if any, was applied to you for collection for money? 31 SCHELL: Mr. Marino, not Mr. Schwartz. He had told me that I couldn't control Struder and that the only way to control him was to take a bat to him. He used other words but that was the jist [sic] of it. 32 DEFENSE COUNSEL: I object to the conclusion of remarks as to what he considers the jist [sic] of something said to him and ask that last statement be stricken.THE COURT: I am not sure I understand your last answer, without giving any undue.... 33 SCHELL: Okay. Struder--he told me that he wanted to go to Struder's house and that the only way to control a nigger was to beat him with a bat. 34 THE COURT: Overrule your objection. 35 PROSECUTOR: Were those Mr. Marino's exact words? 36 SCHELL: Yes. 37 PROSECUTOR: Is Mr. Struder a black man? 38 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Judge, I object. That is absolutely immaterial and irrelevant in regard to this. 39 THE COURT: Overruled. 40 (emphasis supplied). 41 Schell did not answer the prosecutor's question as the prosecutor immediately moved onto other points. At a bench conference following this examination, Appellants moved for a mistrial, alleging that the government was attempting to inflame the black jurors against the white Appellants. The district court denied the motion. Appellants declined the court's offer to give a curative instruction. 42 While this Court is ever-vigilant regarding the improper injection of race into criminal trials, the prosecutor's statements do not constitute an improper appeal to race. Thus, we do not believe that a mistrial was warranted. See Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510, 1522-23 (11th Cir.1988) (although improper, prosecutor's question of black defendant as to whether he referred to his white victim as a honkey was not grounds for granting a mistrial), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1328, 103 L.Ed.2d 596 (1989); United States v. Krohn, 573 F.2d 1382, 1389 (10th Cir.) (government's eliciting from a witness that one of two white defendants on trial for mail fraud had referred to a victim of their scheme as a poor black bastard was not an appeal to racial prejudice), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 949, 98 S.Ct. 2857, 56 L.Ed.2d 792 (1978). See also United States v. Hernandez, 865 F.2d 925, 927-28 (7th Cir.1989) (prosecutor's improper closing remark to send clear message to Cuban drug dealers was not so inflammatory as to prejudice Cuban defendant).