Opinion ID: 214687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mistrial Motion Based on Prosecutor's Question Properly Denied

Text: Moore argues that the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by asking a question regarding a gang, and that the court erred by not ordering a mistrial as a result. This argument fails because the prosecutor's question did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct. We review a district court's decision on motions requesting a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lane, 591 F.3d 921, 927 (7th Cir.2010). In evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct, we employ a two-step process. We first look at the comment in isolation to determine if it was improper. United States v. Hale, 448 F.3d 971, 986 (7th Cir.2006). If we find that it was improper, we must then examine the comment in light of the record as a whole to determine whether the comment deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Id. The ultimate question is whether the comment so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Id. Here, the government had witnesses who could testify that Moore bragged about being a high-ranking member of the Gangster Disciples street gang (GDs), and that he used his status to recruit them into buying drugs from and selling drugs with him. Moore's trial was held before a court that had a general policy of disallowing gang affiliation testimony. This policy acknowledges the substantial risk of unfair prejudice attached to gang affiliation evidence, and our court's directive of careful consideration by district courts in determining the admissibility of gang membership and gang activity evidence. United States v. Irvin, 87 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir.1996). The prosecutor had significant experience appearing before the trial court, and was well aware of its general policy of excluding evidence that could raise an inference of gang membership and activity. During a pre-trial motion hearing, the prosecutor explained that he wanted to elicit testimony about Moore recruiting co-conspirators in his distribution of drugs, but that he would limit it to the best of my ability. He stated that, I will not say, `Did the defendant say he was the governor of the Gangster Disciples?' I will stay away from all of that and not even ask. The court reiterated that Moore's gang affiliation was inadmissible, but that depending upon what a witness says in response to a question either on direct or cross examination, the Court may instruct the jury regarding [the issue of gangs] if it comes in. Devon Smith testified on the second day of trial. He was not one of the witnesses who could testify to being recruited by Moore. Instead, he was scheduled to testify about buying drugs from Moore, selling drugs with him, watching him sell drugs to other people, Moore's control over alleged crack houses, and Moore's possession of guns. During Smith's direct examination, the following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Smith: Q [Prosecutor]. Now, a few days before you got picked up on this case, did you have a conversation with the defendant on 18th Street? A [Smith]. Yes, I did.    Q. And what was he talking about? A. He talking about he tired of these BDs down there, and they were going to have to start paying dues. Q. Okay. He was tired of GDs down here? A. Yes. Q. What are GDs? A. That's another gang. Q. Okay. [Moore's Attorney]: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach? THE COURT: No. The objection [Moore's Attorney]: We had had a discussion. THE COURT: I realize that. Q [Prosecutor]. Let me ask you this way: Was there another group of people? A [Smith]. Yes, there was. Q. And did you have a conversation with the defendant? A. Yes. Q. And without going intodid he talk about paying dues? A. Yes, he did. Q. What did he say about that? A. He was talking about the GDs wanted to start paying. Q. Without saying any organizations A. He said people going to pay dues. He wanted them to pay for the drugs that the other gang, the other group of people was bringing in. And then us, you know what I'm saying, the ones that was in town and everything, making us all start paying dues. Q. He was wanting to make other people who were selling drugs to pay dues to him? A. Yes. At the next break in trial, and outside the presence of the jury, the following exchange took place between the court and the parties: THE COURT: With respect to Devon Smith . . . you should not have asked the question. . . . What are DBs or BDs? What are BDs? That just, you know, you should not have asked that question. The Court's going to find that it's harmless in bringing up about the gang affiliation, but don't ask those types of questions. That invites the gang affiliation. [Prosecutor]: I apologize, Your Honor. Because we weren't talking about the Gangster Disciples and he said BDs. I didn't know if the jury understood. THE COURT: There are some things the jury shouldn't understand. [Prosecutor]: I apologize. We aren't talking about an organization that Mr. Moore was in, but a different one in town. I apologize to the Court for doing that. THE COURT: Stay away from that. The Court finds it's harmless. [Moore's Attorney]: Now that we're outside the scope of the jury, I request a mistrial. THE COURT: I figured you would, and I'm denying the motion. Moore's claim of prosecutorial misconduct is based on the question, What are GDs?. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial based on this question because, when viewed in isolation, the question was not improper. And, in any event, it did not deprive Moore of a fair trial. As the prosecutor stated during his oral argument before our court, he should not have asked the question, What are GDs?. It necessitated testimony regarding a gang, and any response to the question would not have aided the jury in assessing the case against Moore. However, though it was ill-advised, the question was not improper in isolation because it did not implicate Moore's alleged personal affiliation with the GDs, or with any gang. It is possible that Moore, as an individual, would want and demand dues from the GDs without having any gang affiliation himself. Even if the question called for testimony about a gang generally, it does not mean that the question necessitated testimony regarding Moore's membership within or leadership of the GDs. [2] Even if we had found that the question was improper in isolation, it would still not necessitate reversal because it did not deprive Moore of a fair trial. Indeed, any inference of an alleged gang affiliation played a minor role in Moore's trial. First, no witness directly testified to Moore's membership within, or leadership of, the GDs. [3] Second, witness testimony regarding gangs hardly appears in the record, perhaps because the prosecutor went to great lengths to avoid such testimony. For example, the prosecutor would preface questions with statements such as, Without going into any organizations the defendant might have told you about .... And, at one point at a sidebar, the prosecutor advised the court that, I may have to lead this witness a little bit so he doesn't mention GD. Later on in the sidebar, the court said, Why don't you ask him what 7-4 means, even though the court had previously warned the parties not to explain 7-4, which is a moniker often given to GDs because G is the seventh letter of the alphabet and D is the fourth letter of the alphabet. The prosecutor replied, I'm not going to ... [the witness] might blurt out [that Moore] said he was the governor of the GDs running in Mt. Vernon. I need to lead him a little bit about guns and drugs so he doesn't blurt anything out. Finally, during its pre-trial motion hearing, the court said that it would consider providing a cautionary jury instruction regarding gangs depending on witnesses' testimony on direct or cross-examination. Moore did not request a cautionary instruction after the prosecutor asked the question he now challenges. During the jury instruction conference which came directly before closing arguments, the court gave Moore and the prosecution its standard jury instructions, and let each side propose additional instructions. Moore did not argue for a cautionary jury instruction to address gang affiliation. Moore's failure to assert a need for a cautionary instruction directly following the incident, or at the close of evidence, in spite of the court's clear willingness to consider it, undermines his current argument that any comment or reference regarding gang affiliation so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Hale, 448 F.3d at 986. The [w]hat are GDs question did not implicate Moore's alleged involvement with the organization. No witness testified directly to Moore's gang membership or leadership. Gang references are few and far between in the record. And Moore did not request a cautionary jury instruction regarding gangs, in spite of the court's express willingness to consider it. Because the question was not improper in isolation and it did not deprive Moore of a fair trial, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moore's motion for a mistrial.