Opinion ID: 48990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defendants' Motion for Mistrial

Text: 41 All four defendants contend that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motions for a mistrial after government witness Luis Adame, Jr. revealed his gun-shot wound scars to the jury during his testimony. 42 In its case-in-chief, the government called Adame as a fact witness regarding the TMM's alleged attempt to murder him. Moments into his testimony, Adame began having trouble answering the government's questions. He stated that he was nervous and, after being asked by the government if wanted to continue testifying at that time, Adame requested to have a minute and step out .... After two additional questions from the government regarding Adame's fitness to testify, the court excused Adame, giving him time to overcome his nervousness. 43 After examining another witness, the government re-called Adame. As soon as he took the stand, and before any questions were asked on direct examination, Adame stated that he was having a panic attack and again requested that he be allowed to step out of the courtroom for a few minutes. The district court again let Adame leave the courtroom. 44 After examining still another witness, the government again re-called Adame to the witness stand. Before any examination of Adame occurred, a brief bench conference took place, at which counsel for Zavala brought the following information to the court's attention: 45 Apparently this witness's father was murdered and there's some indication it might have been related to the Mexican Mafia. Now I asked [the government] if [it] had planned to go into that and [it] said [it] did, and I'm going to object to it unless it's tied to one of our clients. It's much more prejudicial than probative especially in light of the fact that this man has been in and out of the courtroom four times. 46 In response, the government stated that the information was relevant because it explained why Adame was so emotional. Finding the government's explanation inadequate, the district court granted Zavala's request and told the government, Don't go there. 47 When Adame resumed, he testified that he had been a TMM member under the direct authority of Zavala and that, in March 2003, Zavala, Garcia-Esparza, and Valles came to his place of employment—a car lot—and asked about purchasing five kilograms of cocaine from him. After he and Zavala agreed on the sale of five kilograms for $55,000.00, Adame had the five kilograms delivered to the car lot. When the cocaine arrived, Zavala took all five kilograms, but only paid $22,000.00, deducting $33,000.00 as tax. According to Adame, he objected that Zavala was effectively taking three kilograms without paying. After then being surrounded by Zavala, Garcia-Esparza, Valles, and the rest of the TMM members who were escorting them, Adame acquiesced to Zavala's demand. When asked by the prosecution why this happened, Adame explained that he was being punished for refusing to collect the dime in his neighborhood. 48 Adame further testified that, two weeks after the initial incident, Zavala, Garcia-Esparza, and Valles returned to the car lot with approximately thirteen or fourteen other TMM members, demanding $30,000.00 in back taxes from him, accusing him of under-reporting his drug sales. As Adame did not have $30,000.00 in his possession, Zavala took Adame's Harley Davidson motorcycle (worth approximately $28,000.00) and pickup truck (worth approximately $9,000.00) as collateral, telling Adame that the vehicles would be returned when Adame paid the $30,000.00. 49 Adame testified that he called Zavala two hours later and informed him that the $30,000.00 was available and that he (Adame) would be at the car lot in twenty minutes. Zavala, Garcia-Esparza, Valles, and an additional crew of thirteen or fourteen TMM members then proceeded to the car lot, where Adame gave Zavala the $30,000.00 and requested his motorcycle and truck back. Instead of returning the vehicles as promised, though, Zavala kept them as additional payment for back taxes. 50 Four weeks after the second incident, Adame told Zavala during a telephone conversation that he was quitting the TMM. Approximately two or three weeks after that, Adame received a telephone call from Jesse Hernandez, a close friend of his and a TMM member. During this telephone conversation, Hernandez told Adame that Zavala had given Valles a green light on him, meaning that Zavala had ordered Valles to murder him. After this conversation, Adame became very cautious, even moving to a new home. 51 In early September, as Adame was approaching the door to his home, he heard a vehicle come to an abrupt stop behind him and, after turning around, saw Valles jump out of a van and start shooting at him, with a gun in each hand. Adame ran and called the police on his cellular phone, telling them that he had been shot several times and requesting help. In fact, he had been shot three times. 52 After the police arrived, Adame lost consciousness and was taken to the hospital, where he remained for approximately a month and a half. Because of his wounds, Adame was relegated to a wheelchair and had to use a colostomy bag for approximately one year. 53 On cross-examination, Garcia-Esparza's counsel questioned Adame about his father. Adame testified that his father was killed by the TMM. At this point, defense counsel asked Adame why he had joined the TMM if it was responsible for his father's murder. Adame explained that he joined because he did not want to be killed himself. Defense counsel then proceeded to question Adame about why he had quit the TMM, to which Adame answered that he did so after the TMM began taking his possessions. Defense counsel then posed the following question: You didn't get fed up when they started shooting your family, killing your father. It wasn't until they started taking your stuff that you decided to quit, you were fed up with this? Adame explained that he had not really known his father, who had been in prison most of Adame's life. Defense counsel then interrupted Adame, leading to the following dialogue: 54 Q: You know, it is surprising how much trouble you had talking earlier— 55 A: In June— 56 Q: —this morning but you can't shut up now. Wait till I ask you a question. Now was that all some big act earlier that you came out here with that production you made that you couldn't talk? 57 A: Do you want to see my wounds? Q: Did you hear what I asked you? 58 A: No, it wasn't a big act. 59 Q: You were not wounded in a courtroom were you? 60 A: No. 61 Q: You weren't wounded when you were surrounded by U.S. Marshals, were you? 62 A: I was scared. I started getting anxiety attacks. 63 Q: You weren't wounded by people on this jury, were you? 64 A: No. 65 Q: But yet you made that big production out here this morning that you couldn't talk because these people scared you? 66 A: No, because [the defendants] scared me. 67 The government began re-direct by asking Adame: Just to make sure you didn't make up this whole shooting thing, will you stand up and show us your scars? Defense counsel objected, and the district court sustained the objection. 68 On re-cross, Valles's counsel, who had just obtained the police report for the September 2003 shooting incident, began the following exchange: 69 Q: Do you remember talking to an Officer P. Joke [phonetic], Badge No. 950, about this case? 70 A: At the scene? 71 Q: Yes. 72 A: Yes. 73 Q: Do you remember telling him—and here the complainant is you. Do you remember telling him that you, Luis Adame: Said he didn't know any of the people that got out of that van shooting at him? Do you remember saying that, yes or no? 74 A: The reason I said that is because— 75 Q: Yes or no? 76 A: I wanted to get them myself. 77 Q: Yes or no? 78 A: I wanted him myself. 79 THE COURT: Wait, wait. 80 A: This is what he did to me. 81 THE COURT: Wait. Sit down. 82 A: He shot me. 83 THE COURT: Get him out of here. Out, out, out. 84 MARSHALL: Step this way, please. 85 THE COURT: I don't have time for nonsense. Out. And I'm going to tell the prosecution don't ever bring someone who's just going to show a lot of nonsense. Next witness. 86 [VALLES' COUNSEL]: May his testimony be— 87 THE COURT: It's all struck. Let's go. 88 [VALLES' COUNSEL]: Motion to disregard. 89 THE COURT: Motion to disregard. Just pretend the gentleman was never there. 90 [THE GOVERNMENT]: Dr. Kim Molina, Your Honor. 91 [VALLES' COUNSEL]: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I need to make a motion for mistrial. 92 THE COURT: I understand. That's denied. Thank you. The motion is made as to each defendant and it's denied as to each defendant. 93 During this exchange, Adame had stood and shown the jury the scars from his gun-shot wounds. It was at this point that the court told Adame to sit down, then had him removed from the courtroom, striking the entirety of his testimony. 94 As part of its jury charge, the district court instructed: 95 During the trial I sustained objections to certain questions. You must disregard those questions entirely. Do not speculate as to what the witness would have said if permitted to answer the question. As I told you during the trial, I also struck the entire testimony of Luis Adame, and you are instructed to disregard his testimony in its entirety. You shall not consider any part of his testimony for any reason whatsoever. Your verdict must be solely based on the legally admissible evidence and testimony. 96 On appeal, the defendants contend that Adame's revealing of his scars necessitates a mistrial, because his actions were unfairly prejudicial and incurable. 5
97 We review the denial of a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. 6 A new trial is required only when, after a review of the entire record, it appears that there is a significant possibility that the prejudicial evidence had a substantial impact on the jury verdict. 7 We give great weight to the trial court's assessment of the prejudicial effect of the evidence, and prejudice may be rendered harmless by a curative instruction. 8 We also examine the context of the challenged statement to determine whether the prejudicial comment was elicited by the government or was a spontaneous act by the witness. 9
98 Our review of the record on appeal satisfies us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for mistrial. Adame's showing of his scars was not so prejudicial that it could not be cured with instructions to the jury. He had already testified, without objection, that he had been shot by Valles, had been hospitalized, and had suffered severe injuries. His shooting, hospitalization, and injuries were not in dispute; only the identities of the responsible parties were in dispute. Revealing his scars may well have been unwarranted drama, but his actions did not present new, inadmissible evidence. It only tended to confirm what was already known—that Adame had been shot. 99 In addition, his actions were not elicited by the government. First, during cross-examination, Adame asked Garcia-Esparza's counsel if he wanted to see Adame's scars. True, the government on re-direct examination had asked Adame to show the jury his scars, the district court quickly sustained the defense's objection and prevented Adame from doing so. It was only during defense counsel's re-cross examination that Adame autonomously revealed his scars. He did so when defense counsel questioned him about the shooting and suggested that he did not know who shot him. This occurred after an intense cross-examination, during which Adame was questioned about his father's murder and was made to appear that he valued his possessions more than his family. Given the timing and context of Adame's actions and the fact that he was the first to bring up the possibility of revealing his scars, we cannot conclude that the government elicited Adame's actions. 100 More importantly, after Adame revealed his scars, the district court quickly and authoritatively took command of the situation, expelling Adame from the courtroom, striking his entire testimony, and admonishing the prosecution. During the jury charge, the district court again instructed the jury that it could not consider any of Adame's testimony. Based on the limited prejudice suffered by the revealing of Adame's scars and the strong, immediate actions of the district court, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' motions for mistrial. 101