Opinion ID: 363490
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: He just signed the waiver of rights form is all he did.

Text: 47 The trial court granted Manafzadeh's motion to strike the answer as unresponsive. 48 In response to further questioning about his post-arrest interview of Manafzadeh, Agent Healy stated: 49 Well, it depends upon how you are talking, about an interview. If reading his rights is an interview, we read him his rights. (Tr. 25). 50 No objection or motion to strike was made following that statement. 51 Manafzadeh now argues that Agent Healy's statements taken together constituted impermissible comment on his exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights. There is, of course, little doubt that Healy's remarks were improper, but they fall far short of the sort of comment that has been found to require reversal. See United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171, 95 S.Ct. 2133, 45 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976). Healy's oblique and inconsistent statements concerning Manafzadeh's post arrest behavior were more likely to have confused the jury than to have given them any clear impression that Manafzadeh refused to answer questions following his arrest. Such ambiguous remarks, particularly when not invited by the question posed, 5 are not sufficient to warrant a mistrial. See United States v. Natale, 526 F.2d 1160, 1172 (2d Cir. 1975). Additional assurance that Manafzadeh was not prejudiced by Healy's testimony is provided by the fact that the trial court took prompt curative action. See United States v. Nasta, 398 F.2d 283, 285 (2d Cir. 1968). 52 I would affirm the conviction.