Opinion ID: 2975989
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Parole Officer Slater’s Testimony.

Text: After obtaining initial background information from Officer David Slater about his duties, the prosecution proceeded to pursue questioning regarding Billman’s period of parole: Q. Can you tell us about any incidents at that time? A. The time that I’m referring to is when he was returned to prison as a violator. Q. And what was that for? A. There were numerous violations. MR. BILLMAN: Object. THE COURT: Sustained. The jury will disregard that comment. The [G]overnment was instructed that that was inappropriate evidence. (JA 545.) Slater then testified that there had been an incident with a handgun that was found in Billman’s bedroom. The prosecutor continued: Q. And do you know if it was loaded or not? A. Yes, it was. Eight in the clip and one in the chamber. MR. BILLMAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Approach. (At side bar on the record.) THE COURT: I don’t know if you are trying to invite a mistrial, but you are getting pretty close. You are certainly getting my anger. I told you not to do this. I told you you could establish the continued ownership. There’s no reason to even address the question of whether it was loaded, and I told you to stay away from violations. MS. CRAMER: I was shocked that he answered violations. THE COURT: Did you talk to him about the limitations. MS. CRAMER: Yes, Judge, at least three times. At least three times, Your Honor. THE COURT: Why did you ask him if it was loaded? Of what relevance is that other than to try to prejudice the jury? - 15 - 06-3731 United States v. Billman (JA 546.) This does not rise to the level of flagrant misconduct. While the district court expressed its strong disapproval to the Government, the district court also issued a curative instruction to the jury, instructing them to disregard the questions because they were improper. This misconduct, followed by a curative statement, is not flagrant and does not warrant a new trial. See United States v. Sales, No. 05-2522, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21869,  19-20 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding that the prosecutor’s statement regarding defendant’s prior felonies, while improper, were not flagrant when followed by a curative instruction).