Opinion ID: 4567911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mug shots

Text: Lastly, another Defendant, Campbell, contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a mistrial after mug shots were displayed to the jury. A “denial of a defendant’s motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the district court.” United States v. Dorlouis, 107 F.3d 248, 257 (4th Cir. 1997). As a reviewing court, we disrupt this discretion “only under the most extraordinary of circumstances.” Id. “[I]f the jury could make [the] guilt determination[] by following the court’s cautionary instructions” as to the potentially prejudicial material, then “no prejudice exists.” United States v. Wallace, 515 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). 18 During trial, Campbell’s counsel suggested through questioning that a witness misidentified Campbell “as a black male with short dreads.” J.A. 485. Campbell’s counsel then pressed the witness to confirm that the witness had not encountered Campbell with short dreads. On redirect, the government tried to show arrest photos from during the conspiracy that showed Campbell with dreadlocks. See United States v. Johnson, 495 F.2d 378, 384 (4th Cir. 1974). After the page was displayed for no more than three or four seconds, Campbell’s counsel objected, and the exhibit was taken down. At sidebar, the district court agreed to exclude the photographs but refused to grant a mistrial because the images were not displayed long enough for anyone to draw any prejudicial inference about Campbell. The district court then instructed the jury to “completely disregard” the images. J.A. 547. Given the limited time the photographs were displayed and the steps taken by the district court, we find that the court acted within its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial after mitigating any risk of prejudice with a cautionary instruction.