Opinion ID: 759769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Introduction Of Evidence Of Other Bad Acts

Text: 24 Abdullah maintains that his conviction should be reversed because of the prejudicial introduction of evidence of other bad acts alleged to have been committed by him. As noted by the district court in its analysis of this contention, however, the defendant himself, through counsel, elicited the very testimony that he now highlights to support his claim for reversal of his conviction. In relevant part, the following colloquy on cross-examination of a Michigan State Police sergeant forms the basis for Abdullah's allegation of error: 25 Q: Now, prior to this time, you never saw or heard of Mr. Abdullah, the defendant; is that right? 26 A: That's correct. 27 Q: Or in any way had him implicated in any drug trafficking--I mean, not drug, but cigarette trafficking; isn't that right? Prior to this time. 28 A: No, I believe there's information of involvement in New York. 29 Q: See, I mean you have information, I believe. What is that information? 30 A: Can we--are we permitted to discuss that? 31 Q: You said you had information that Mr. Abdullah was dealing in cigarettes in New York. That's what you left the jury with the impression of; is that right? Show me that information. You keep looking at Mr. Macek. Don't you know yourself? 32 A: Can we produce that here? 33 Q: Well, you are asking-- 34 THE COURT: Let him respond to the question. 35 A: I believe it can be produced, yes. 36 Q: And where is that information? 37 A: It's historical information we have in our files. 38 Q: Historical information? Who keeps that file? 39 A: Well-- 40 Q: I'm listening. I'm waiting.A: I believe his name had come up with trafficking in New York. 41 Q: You believe but, therefore, you don't have the information written anywhere period? 42 A: It's documented. 43 Shortly after that exchange, the district judge adjourned court for the evening. The following morning, he instructed the jury: 44 There was some reference in the testimony of Mr. Ward who was on the stand yesterday, some reference with dealing with cigarettes in New York. I want to make it perfectly clear to you, members of the jury, he is not charged, the Defendant is not charged with trafficking in contraband cigarettes in New York. You should disregard any of that testimony. The charge against him is trafficking in contraband cigarettes, receiving contraband cigarettes, and distributing in Michigan, here, not in New York. Any testimony that you heard to anything in New York, he has not been charged with, and you should completely put that out of your mind, and remember that we are dealing here in Michigan, and not New York. 45 At that point, the questioning of Sergeant Ward continued. Defense counsel inquired: 46 Q: Okay. Now, did you see Mr. Abdullah anytime thereafter, the Defendant? 47 A: Immediately thereafter, or from then to now? 48 Q: Not from then to now, but then till--well, when's the next time you saw him? I don't mean now, but after that, when's the next time? 49 A: May I--can we get into that? 50 At that point, the jury was again dismissed and the court asked Ward when he next saw Abdullah after November 1994. Ward responded that his contact with the defendant involved another case of cigarette smuggling in Troy, Michigan. Consequently, the district judge ruled that defense counsel could only inquire whether Ward had seen Abdullah again with reference to this case. When the jury returned to the courtroom, therefore, defense counsel asked bluntly, Did you see the Defendant subsequently after leaving that group concerning this case? The witness responded, Concerning this case, no. 51 On appeal, the defendant maintains that he was prejudiced by the admission of testimony regarding Abdullah's connection with other incidents of cigarette smuggling. Decisions regarding the admission of certain evidence or to deny a motion for mistrial are, however, reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 554 (6th Cir.1993); United States v. Carroll, 26 F.3d 1380, 1383 (6th Cir.1994). No such abuse of discretion can be substantiated in this case. A review of the transcript of defense counsel's cross-examination of the prosecution witness who offered the allegedly damaging information reveals that the defendant's own attorney elicited the testimony to which he now objects. Furthermore, we have previously held that a reviewing court must presume that jurors complied with cautionary instructions offered by the district court. See United States v. Sivils, 960 F.2d 587, 594 (6th Cir.1992). See also Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). Under such circumstances, we cannot conclude that reversible error occurred as a result of the testimony that may have implicated Abdullah in other crimes. 52