Opinion ID: 790007
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evans's testimony

Text: 15 In her examination of Rickie Evans at trial, the AUSA elicited testimony regarding the bond hearing at which Evans, Banks, and Poston were all present: 16 Q: What happened at the bond hearing? 17 A: The Judge asked us whose gun it was that they found in the Jeep. 18 Q: The Judge asked you? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And did you answer? 21 A: No, every — we was waiting on — well, I was waiting on Mr. Banks to answer. Q: And did he answer? 22 A: It took a while. 23 Q: Did he answer? 24 A: Eventually, yes. 25 Q: What did he say? 26 A: He said it was his. 27 (Tr. at 1359.) Banks did not object to the testimony on this subject, but at the end of the direct examination moved for a mistrial on the ground that the judge at the bond hearing asked Banks about the gun without a Miranda warning. Banks now alleges that the AUSA purposely elicited this testimony in violation of his constitutional rights, and that his conviction should be reversed because the alleged misconduct deprived him of a fair trial. See generally United States v. Badger, 983 F.2d 1443, 1450 (7th Cir.1993). 28 The district court struck the evidence but denied Banks's motion for a mistrial. 5 We agree with the district court that there was nothing wrong with the AUSA's questions, but that the evidence (Evans's answers) presented the potential problem. ( See Tr. at 1416.) Finding no prosecutorial misconduct with regard to Evans's questioning, we review the court's decision to strike the challenged evidence and deny the motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 308 F.3d 726, 739-40 (7th Cir.2002). 29 The challenged evidence being presented to the jury does not constitute the type of prejudice to Banks that would warrant a mistrial. Jurors are presumed to follow limiting and curative instructions except in unusual cases where the evidence improperly before them is so powerfully incriminating that they cannot reasonably be expected to put it out of their minds. Id. at 739. Even if the jury did consider this allegedly improper admission (or if the judge had not had it stricken), the error would have been harmless: the evidence relating to Banks's ownership of the gun was cumulative, as Banks's own admission to police after his arrest and Miranda warning that the gun was his was admissible. We also note that Banks was actually acquitted of the count most closely related to the gun and the drugs ejected from Jackson's car. There was no abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial based on Evans's testimony.