Opinion ID: 783228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mistrial/New Trial for Sequestration Violation

Text: 26 Collins next argues that the district court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial or a new trial after two alleged violations of the court's sequestration order. Collins alleges that the first violation occurred when the United States Marshall Service placed prosecution witnesses Rydberg and Hald in the same holding cell as they awaited their turns to testify. Collins claims that the second violation occurred when Sheriff Deputy Robert Jones, prior to being called to testify, entered the courtroom during the testimony of Emma Chance, another prosecution witness. Collins argues that there was manifest necessity for granting a mistrial or a new trial under these circumstances, and nothing short of mistrial or a new trial could have cured the violations. 27 Sequestration of most witnesses is mandatory when requested, see Fed.R.Evid. 615, but the district court is granted wide latitude in implementing sequestration orders, and the standard of review is abuse of discretion. United States v. Vallie, 284 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir.2002); United States v. Kindle, 925 F.2d 272, 276 (8th Cir.1991). Courts distinguish between a judge's failure to comply with a Rule 615 request and a party's violation of a Rule 615 order as in this case, with action on the latter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See United States v. Ell, 718 F.2d 291, 293 (9th Cir.1983). The purpose of sequestration is to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony to that of prior witnesses and to aid in detection of dishonesty. Vallie, 284 F.3d at 921 (citing Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 87, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976)). 28 Collins's first allegation involves Hald and Rydberg's confinement in the same holding cell during the trial. He cites United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373 (10th Cir.1986), for the proposition that the sequestration order requires not only that prospective witnesses be excluded from the courtroom, but also that they be prohibited from discussing the case with other witnesses. However, Greschner did not create a blanket prohibition against allowing witnesses to discuss the case both before and after they testify as Collins asserts. Instead, the court in Greschner determined that Rule 615 and the trial court's sequestration order required only that witnesses be excluded from the courtroom and that witnesses be prevented from discussing testimony they have given and events in the courtroom with other witnesses who are to testify. Id. at 376. Greschner does not address the situation here involving two potential witnesses who possibly discussed the case before testifying or being present in the courtroom. As such, this is not a violation of Rule 615, which serves to prevent witnesses from tailoring their testimony to that of prior witnesses and to aid in detection of dishonesty. Vallie, 284 F.3d at 921; Geders, 425 U.S. at 87, 96 S.Ct. 1330. Neither Hald nor Rydberg could tell the other about the nature of his testimony because neither had testified prior to the time they were in the holding cell. 29 Collins's second claim turns on Officer Jones's pre-testimony presence in the courtroom when Chance testified. Because Collins did not immediately object to the officer's presence, the issue may only be reviewed for plain error. However, even under plain-error review, the district court was not required to order a mistrial upon Collins's late mistrial motion. Instead, the trial court enjoys wide latitude to fashion the appropriate remedy for a violation, including a warning by the court prohibiting such contact, exclusion of testimony of the violating witness, or awarding a mistrial. We review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Vallie, 284 F.3d at 921; Kindle, 925 F.2d at 276. Here, the government notes that the district court admonished the prosecution about the violation. Furthermore, although the officer's presence violated the sequestration order, no prejudice occurred. Chance and Officer Jones offered testimony on two completely different issues that did not overlap and did not involve any of the same facts involving Collins. As such, the district court did not err in denying Collins's mistrial or new trial motions.