Opinion ID: 799033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Mistrial due to counsel's health problems

Text: Gallion next argues that the district court should have declared a mistrial based on his counsel's health problems during trial. But Gallion did not move for a mistrial in the district court, so his claim is reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 245 (6th Cir.2006). This means that, in order to prevail, he must show that the district court's failure to declare a mistrial was a clear error that affected his substantial rights and that this adverse impact seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See United States v. Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024, 1029 (6th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gallion has not even attempted to meet this high bar here, and any such attempt would be futile. When his counsel became ill during the trial, the district court appointed interim counsel to represent him and then continued the case. The trial resumed when Gallion's regular counsel returned a week later. We find no error, plain or otherwise, in utilizing this procedure.