Opinion ID: 796140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Hall's statements

Text: 98 Defendant Cloud additionally objects to two statements made during the direct examination of Hall. Hall, being asked how he recognized an undercover police car, responded that I have got arrested with Fred Cloud before. J.A. at 1093. Defendant Cloud moved to strike, and the motion was sustained. Defendant Cloud did not move for a mistrial. Later, the government asked Hall if he recalled Defendant Cloud selling drugs in the neighborhood during the 2002 to 2003 time frame. Hall responded, Well, in 2002 when I got out of jail, [Defendant Cloud] was on house arrest. J.A. at 1126. Defendant Cloud again did not make a motion for a mistrial. We thus review for plain error. Kincaide, 145 F.3d at 781. 99 We conclude that the district court did not commit plain error in failing to sua sponte declare a mistrial. These remarks were unsolicited. The government's questioning, which related to events that were relevant to the conspiracy, was reasonable. There was no indication of bad faith on the part of the government, and the evidence against Defendant Cloud was substantial. The only Forrest factor that favors Defendant Cloud is the failure of the district court to give a limiting instruction. This failure does not amount to plain error.