Opinion ID: 183018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Other grounds to support the cumulative error holding

Text: As further support for its cumulative error holding, the majority mentions two additional purported problems. While it does not go so far as to call either an error, it significantly overstates their impact on the fairness of the trial. Both issues can be dealt with summarily. Although the trial transcript does show a number of minor omissions, none was prejudicial to Delgado. Nothing in her appeal relates to the voir dire, and a review of the transcript shows that those proceedings are discernible and that there was no error in the district court's handling of jury selection. All of Delgado's objections and all of the court's rulings are on the record. The scattered gaps in the record do not cast any doubt on the verdict. [19] The omissions did not prejudice Delgado and do not bolster an otherwise unjustifiable finding of cumulative error. The district court's denial of a mistrial after the prejudicial and purportedly non-responsive testimony from Agent Spivey [20] was obviously not an abuse of discretion; the district court's handling of the statement, late in the trial, was exemplary. [21] Even assuming that the remark was not invited and was prejudicial, there is no significant possibility that it had a substantial impact on the jury's verdict. See United States v. Limones, 8 F.3d 1004, 1007-08 (5th Cir.1993). The court delivered an effective cautionary instruction, and the evidence that TJ Trucking was presently involved in drug trafficking was overwhelming. The jury would have had no reason to rely on Agent Spivey's off-the-cuff remark in deciding to convict. Neither purported problem supports the court's holding.