Opinion ID: 75885
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for a Mistrial: Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination

Text: 25 Appellant Guerra appeals the district court's denial of the motion for mistrial on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination had been violated by comments made by a government witness, Agent Robert Villanueva, during trial. Specifically, Guerra asserts that during cross-examination as to whether Agent Villanueva knew whether Guerra sold counterfeit cigars, Agent Villanueva improperly drew the jury's attention to Guerra's silence by indicating that Guerra would be in a better position to answer certain questions. 5 Guerra asserts that the court's subsequent curative instruction was ineffective, and that the testimony prejudiced the fairness of the trial. 26 The constitutional harmless error standard applies to review of a denial of a motion for mistrial on the basis of an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. See United States v. Smith, 635 F.2d 411, 413 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (finding admittedly improper comment on defendant's silence by government witness to be harmless error where court gave clear curative instruction and polled jury as to whether they could disregard comment). A comment is deemed to be a reference to the defendant's silence if either (1) it was the prosecutor's manifest intention to refer to the defendant's silence, or (2) the remark was of such a character that the jury would `naturally and necessarily' take it to be a comment on defendant's silence. Id. at 413. Here, Guerra's claim of silence is misleading, as he did in fact testify at trial, and specifically testified that there were never any cigars in his shop. See Trial Tr. at 772. Furthermore, there is no ground for concluding that the jury would naturally and necessarily construe the comment to refer to Guerra's supposed silence, as the context of the statement reveals that the witness was referring to his inability to answer the question, and was clearly minimizing Guerra's role in the counterfeiting operation. See trial transcript supra n. 7 (Your client was merely a printer of the item.). If anything, Agent Villanueva's answers indicate that he did not believe Guerra to have sold any counterfeit cigars. 27 Even assuming the statements made by Agent Villanueva in fact referred to Guerra's silence, Guerra has not shown that the curative instruction was deficient, or that the statements are somehow incurable. In its curative instruction, the district court specifically referenced Agent Villanueva's comment and clearly explained the reasons why the jury should not speculate as to whether Guerra was in a position to answer the question. 6 Guerra's allegation that the curative instruction was untimely is also unpersuasive. The judge had instructed the witness immediately after the comments were made that he should simply answer no if he lacks personal knowledge to answer. The jury could not have been confused as to which comments the judge was referring in his subsequent curative instruction, in light of the judge's almost verbatim quote of Agent Villanueva's testimony.