Opinion ID: 171258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged references to homosexuality

Text: Schene also claims that the government suggested that he was a homosexual, which violated his right to due process and a fundamentally fair trial. When prosecutorial misconduct deprives a criminal defendant of a fair trial, the defendant's due process rights are violated, and reversal is warranted. United States v. Gabaldon, 91 F.3d 91, 93 (10th Cir.1996) (citations omitted). As we have explained previously, a prosecutor's emphasis on a defendant's homosexuality can have a tremendous negative impact on jurors and is often designed solely to inflame the jury's prejudices. Neill v. Gibson, 263 F.3d 1184, 1201-02 (10th Cir. 2001) (citing cases). If a defendant has both objected contemporaneously and unsuccessfully moved the district court for a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, the appropriate standard of review is for an abuse of discretion. Gabaldon, 91 F.3d at 93. The government made two references to homosexuality during Schene's trial. The first was Officer Elliott's description of the type of child pornography found on Schene's computer: A I would say probably 90 to 95 percent of the images that were child pornography were images of young boys. They may be nude by themselves in a sexually provocative position, they may be engaged in a homosexual act with another young boy or an adult male. Q And in your experience in working with cyber crimes and these types of investigations, have you ever seen a woman who trafficked in child pornography showing homosexual acts between males? A I have not. Tr. at 107. Contrary to Schene's contention, the government did not accuse him of being a homosexual in this testimony, or suggest that homosexuals are more likely to view child pornography. The government's use of the word homosexual was solely to describe the type of child pornography found on Schene's computer. The second reference to homosexuality, however, is more problematic. Officer Elliott testified: Q Now, on the internet history, were there instances you could find where websites with homosexual themes had been visited? A Yes, sir. I saw repeatedly, I saw the user under the Jay Martin Schene account visit www.menforsexnow.com, www.menforrentnow.com, www. cruisingforsex.com. And there was an address at library, gaycafe.com that was visited very frequently. Q And did you look at a few of these websites? A I did. I visited each of those. Each of them are gay oriented for males. They all offered child pornography to view. They are kind of a social networking site where you can post your profile or post an ad requesting to meet with someone and that kind of thing. Tr. at 126. The prosecutor's initial question in this exchange was arguably improper. See Neill, 263 F.3d at 1201-02. Neverthelessand even assuming, arguendo, that Schene preserved this argument for appeal by objecting and moving for a mistrial on this ground earlier in the trialthe district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial based on the prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor's question was singular and isolated, United States v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1288 (10th Cir.1996) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), and Officer Elliott quickly refocused his testimony on the fact that the websites all offered child pornography to view. Tr. at 126. Given the evidence against Schene, moreover, the alleged prosecutorial misconduct was not flagrant enough to influence the jury to convict on grounds other than the evidence presented. Ivy, 83 F.3d at 1288 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Reversal is not warranted on these grounds.