198 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. 1999), 98-2212, United States v Washington
|Docket Nº:||98-2212, 99-1252|
|Citation:||198 F.3d 721|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE, v. TIMOTHY C. WASHINGTON, ALSO KNOWN AS APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TIMOTHY CHARLES WASHINGTON, ALSO DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT KNOWN AS TIMOTHY WASHINGTON, ALSO OF NEBRASKA. KNOWN AS TIMMY S. WASHINGTON, ALSO Page 722 KNOWN AS TIMMY WASHINGTON, ALSO KNOWN AS TIM WASHINGTON, ALSO KNOWN AS BABY FLY WASHIN|
|Case Date:||November 18, 1999|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
December 27, 1999
Before Beam, Floyd R. Gibson, and Wellford,1 Circuit Judges.
Beam, Circuit Judge.
Timothy Washington sat silent in the courtroom while his counsel made numerous motions for a mistrial at Washington's first trial on drug trafficking charges. The district court2 ultimately granted counsel's last mistrial motion. Washington was subsequently re-tried and convicted. He now claims a mistrial should neither have been sought nor granted because his counsel did not allow him to make that decision. He also contends that his re-trial was barred on double jeopardy grounds because the prosecutor intended to provoke his counsel into moving for a mistrial. We reject both of Washington's contentions and affirm his conviction.
On the third day of Washington's initial trial, his counsel moved for a mistrial because the government failed to disclose a written summary of testimony from expert witnesses scheduled to appear that day. Washington's counsel also moved for a mistrial because the government failed to provide the proffer agreement of another witness. The district court declined to grant the motions.
The prosecutor then brought to the court's attention a summary report of Harry Harrison's criminal history that showed that Harrison was a convicted felon. Harrison had testified as a witness for the government on the second day of trial. Washington's counsel again moved for a mistrial because the government had not met its obligation to produce this impeachment evidence prior to Harrison's cross-examination. The district court granted this motion.
We review a district court's ruling on a motion for mistrial for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Adams, 37...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP