Opinion ID: 352530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Admission of Allegedly Prejudicial Testimony.

Text: 116 Summa argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to declare a mistrial after Maheu testified that Hughes directed him to offer a bribe to former President Johnson. The specific testimony which Summa challenges begins as follows: 117 (Hughes) wanted me to suggest to President Johnson that he, Howard Hughes, was prepared to give (President Johnson) a million dollars, after he left the office of the presidency, if he would stop the atomic testing before he left office. (R.T. at 9,177-78) 118 That statement, in addition to Maheu's continual references to the incident, according to Summa, hopelessly distorted the jury's determination of the issue of the truth of Hughes' statement by arousing their natural outrage toward an alleged briber of the President. (Summa's Opening Brief at 75). We agree. 119 The Judge allowed the testimony only to show the relationship between Maheu and Hughes and instructed the jury to that effect. (R.T. 9,175.) However, there was a great deal of evidence about the relationship between Hughes and Maheu. We find it difficult to believe that the evidence in question was offered for any purpose other than to blacken Hughes' character, which was not in issue. The evidence should be excluded in another trial. 120