VIII. Defenses
Mistrial
Sixth Circuit
• Mistrial
U.S. v. Martinez, 03-3833 (11/17/05)
> At defendant’s trial for a drug conspiracy, an officer
testified that defendant had been arrested several times before for
drug dealing. Defendant objected and the trial court sustained,
providing an instruction to the jury to disregard the statement.
Defendant then moved for a mistrial and the district court denied the
motion. Defendant appealed.
* Holding: A court must consider five factors in assessing whether a
mistrial is appropriate based upon an improper reference to an
unrelated arrest: (1) whether the remark was unsolicited; (2) whether
the government’s line of questioning was reasonable; (3) whether
the court’s instruction was immediate, clear, and forceful; (4)
whether the government exhibited bad faith; and (5) whether the remark
was only a small part of the evidence against the defendant. The court
found that all of the factors weighed against the defendant, and
affirmed the denial of the mistrial.
• Mistrial - Improper Witness Comments
U.S. v. Caver, 05-3295 (12/4/06)
> Defendant was charged with a drug conspiracy and during the trial
several witnesses blurted out improper comments about defendant being
in jail with them, defendant pouring gasoline on his girlfriend’s
home, and being afraid that defendant would murder them. Defendant
requested a mistrial, the district court rejected the request, and he
appealed.
* Holding: A court must evaluate five factors in order to assess
whether improper witness statements warrant a mistrial: (1) whether the
remark was unsolicited: (2) whether the line of questioning was
reasonable; (3) whether a limiting instruction was immediate and clear;
(4) whether the government acted in bad faith; and (5) whether the
remark was only a small piece of the evidence against the defendant. In
considering the five factors and the various improper statements, the
court held that a mistrial was not warranted. Thus, the conviction was
affirmed.
• Mistrial
U.S. v. Caldwell, 06-5640 (2/26/08)
> Defendant was charged with possessing narcotics with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. Prior to trial, the district court granted a defense motion to exclude any reference to the charge (aggravated burglary) underlying an open warrant that officers had for defendant at the time of his arrest. In spite of the district court’s order, the prosecutor mentioned the charge in open statement, and then an officer testified about the charge. Defendant objected both times and requested a mistrial. The district court denied the mistrial, but instead instructed the jury to disregard the comments. Upon his conviction, defendant appealed.
* Holding: The court held that the district court acted within its discretion in providing a jury instruction instead of granting a mistrial. The court emphasized that the evidence against defendant was otherwise overwhelming and that the prosecutor’s and witness’ statements did not appear to be intentional or in bad faith. Therefore, the conviction was affirmed.