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

Heading: Morris's statement

Text: 87 During cross examination, counsel for Defendant Abdullah asked Morris in which city he lived. The following exchange took place: 88 Q. Did you own the home you were living in? 89 A. No. 90 . . . 91 Q. And where was it? A. That's irrelevant. 92 Q. What city was it in? 93 A. That's irrelevant. 94 [Defendant's Abdullah's counsel]. Your honor, would you direct the witness to answer the question please? He's making legal determinations. 95 [Morris]. So they can come back and have somebody kill my daughter and my kids? J.A. at 1005. 96 Defendant Cloud and Defendant Caver argue that the court should have granted a mistrial in response to this statement. However, as neither Defendant objected at trial, we review only for plain error. United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 781 (6th Cir.1998). 97 Applying the Forrest factors, we conclude that the court's failure to sua sponte declare a mistrial does not amount to plain error. Because the remark occurred on cross examination, whether the government solicited the remark is inapplicable, as is the question of whether the government's line of questioning was reasonable. There was no indication of bad faith by the government, and there was substantial evidence against Defendant Cloud and Defendant Caver adduced at trial. The fact that there was no limiting instruction, on the other hand, favors Defendants, but this alone is not sufficient to carry Defendants' burden of plain error. We conclude that no plain error occurred.