U.S. v. Wilson, 97-2122
Decision Date | 13 August 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 97-2122,97-2122 |
Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1726 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin WILSON, a.k.a. Clinton Edwards, a.k.a. Kevin Edwards, a.k.a. Keevie, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Kenneth S. Siegel, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Tamra Phipps, Susan Rothstein-Youakim, Kathy J.M. Peluso, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and ALARCON *, Senior Circuit Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction claiming that prosecutorial misconduct warrants a new trial. While some of the prosecutor's conduct at trial was improper, we nonetheless conclude that a new trial is not justified. We affirm.
In 1995, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and local law enforcement agencies conducted "Operation Cookie"--a multi-agency task force established to investigate large-scale drug activity. As part of the investigation, Deputy Leon Paige and a confidential informant negotiated a drug deal with Defendant Kevin Wilson. Defendant was supposed to sell 125 grams--or 4.5 ounces--of crack cocaine to Paige. But, on the day of the transaction, Defendant had only one-half ounce of crack cocaine to sell. Nonetheless, Paige purchased the amount of crack cocaine Defendant had at that time. 1 Paige tape-recorded the transaction. Photographic surveillance of the transaction also occurred.
Despite this sale of cocaine, Defendant was not immediately arrested. 2 Defendant, however, was later arrested for the one-half ounce transaction and indicted on one count of distributing cocaine base (crack cocaine) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The case proceeded to trial. At the close of his case, Defendant moved for a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The jury convicted Defendant on the sole count charged. The district court sentenced Defendant to 236 months' imprisonment. Defendant appeals.
Defendant argues that instances of prosecutorial misconduct necessitate a mistrial. He specifically contends that, because he was indicted for the single sale of only a small amount of crack cocaine, the prosecutor improperly characterized him as a "major" drug dealer during the course of the trial. 3 See United States v. Blakey, 14 F.3d 1557, 1560-61 (11th Cir.1994) ( ); United States v. Goodwin, 492 F.2d 1141, 1147 (5th Cir.1974); cf. United States v. Caballero, 712 F.2d 126, 132 (5th Cir.1983) (). In addition, he asserts that the prosecutor made improper inquiries about his prior convictions. 4 Defendant's argument, however, is unavailing. To find prosecutorial misconduct, a two-element test must be met: " '(1) the remarks must be improper, and (2) the remarks must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant.' " United States v. Gonzalez, 122 F.3d 1383, 1389 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Eyster, 948 F.2d 1196, 1206 (11th Cir.1991)); see also United States v. Thomas, 62 F.3d 1332, 1343 (11th Cir.1995). "A defendant's substantial rights are prejudicially affected when a reasonable probability arises that, but for the remarks, the outcome [of the trial] would be different." United States v. Hall, 47 F.3d 1091, 1098 (11th Cir.1995) (citing Kennedy v. Dugger, 933 F.2d 905, 914 (11th Cir.1991)). The court makes this determination in the " 'context of the entire trial and in light of any curative instruction.' " United States v. Chirinos, 112 F.3d 1089, 1098 (11th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518, 1525 (11th Cir.1996)); Thomas, 62 F.3d at 1343 ( ).
In this case, some of the pertinent remarks of the prosecutor were improper. 5 And, at least about some of the remarks, the government's counsel conceded as much in the briefs and at oral argument. 6 The sole issue, then, is whether the remarks substantially affected Defendant's rights. We conclude that Defendant has shown no substantial prejudice.
The record reveals that the district court made an effort to cure any prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor's remarks. In at least one instance, the district court sustained an objection by Defendant and issued immediately a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the improper remark. See Gonzalez, 122 F.3d at 1389 ( ). In addition, the district court gave several instructions to the jury throughout the trial about how evidence or statements made by the lawyers should be used and considered. 7 See United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1402 (11th Cir.1997). The jury is presumed to have followed these instructions. See United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1334 (11th Cir.1997).
Most important, evidence of Defendant's guilt is overwhelming. See generally United States v. McLean, 138 F.3d 1398, 1403 (11th Cir.1998) ( ); United States v. Gonzalez, 833 F.2d 1464, 1466 (11th Cir.1987) ( ); United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1182 (2nd Cir.1981) (same); cf. Blakey, 14 F.3d at 1561 ( ). The government presented this evidence: (1) Deputy Paige's direct testimony about purchasing the cocaine from Defendant; (2) evidence of the crack cocaine; (3) a tape recording of Paige, the confidential informant, and Defendant during the drug transaction; 8 and (4) Defendant's own testimony, which seems to corroborate the evidence to some extent. 9
We conclude that the prosecutor's remarks, although improper, did not affect Defendant's substantial rights and did not deprive him of a fair trial. The district court committed no error by denying the motion for mistrial; and no new trial is warranted. See United States v. Melton, 739 F.2d 576 579 (11th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Dodd, 111 F.3d 867, 870 (11th Cir.1997).
We thus find ourselves in a situation with which we are all too familiar: a prosecutor has engaged in misconduct at trial, but no reversible error has been shown. See United States v. Boyd, 131 F.3d 951, 955 (11th Cir.1997); see United States v. Eason, 920 F.2d 731, 736 (11th Cir.1990) ( ); United States v. Butera, 677 F.2d 1376, 1383 (11th Cir.1982); see also Modica, 663 F.2d at 1182.
We recall the duties in a criminal prosecution of a lawyer for the United States:
Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir.1962) (quoting Handford v. United States, 249 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir.1957)); see Goodwin, 492 F.2d at 1147 ().
And, as this court said in Hall, "government counsel is, as an individual, properly and highly respected by the members of the jury for his integrity, fairness, and impartiality." 419 F.2d at 588 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Added to this is the unseen presence in the courtroom of our great and powerful government with its counsel and its voice in the person of the United States Attorney. For all these reasons his power to persuade is great. And for these reasons he must speak with the care, the decorum and the sensitivity that befit his position and his duties. Neither the heat and strain of trial nor the right to strike hard blows authorizes him to do otherwise.
Id. (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934)). Not only must a prosecutor be faithful to his duties each time he enters a courtroom, he must also be mindful of the authority he wields when executing those duties before a jury.
One may think that unless a conviction is reversed, no error has occurred. Such a proposition is incorrect. Eason, 920 F.2d at 737; see Boyd, 131 F.3d at 955 (). But the reversal on appeal of a conviction is usually an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Duran
...that, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different." Eckhardt, 466 F.3d at 947 (citing United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir.1998)). "When the record contains sufficient independent evidence of guilt, any error is harmless." Id. (citing United Sta......
-
U.S. v. Shaygan
...that Anglo-American criminal law rests on the foundation: better the guilty escape than the innocent suffer. United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir.1998) (quoting Dunn v. United States, 307 F.2d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1962) (emphasis added)). A prosecutor is held to these standa......
-
U.S. v. Chavez
...denied 552 U.S. 899, 128 S.Ct. 218, 169 L.Ed.2d 168 (2007); United States v. Delgado, 321 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.2003); United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.1998). Here, the inappropriate reference to the Defendant was all but invited by the cross examination, not instigated by the......
-
United States v. McGarity
...from a prosecutor's comment, we examine that comment in the context of the entire trial and in light of any curative instruction. Wilson, 149 F.3d at 1301; see also United States v. Hernandez, 145 F.3d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir.1998). As listed above, the district court sustained objections to t......
-
Review Proceedings
...2002) (prosecutorial misconduct claim preserved because misconduct deprived defendant of opportunity to object at trial); U.S. v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1301 n.5 (11th Cir. 1998) (prosecutorial misconduct claim preserved because defense counsel objected to sufficient instances of misconduc......
-
Trials
...2018) (prosecutor’s statements that defendant’s PTSD diagnosis was “insult to all legitimate people with PTSD” improper); U.S. v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 1998) (prosecutor’s characterization of defendant as “major” drug dealer improper); U.S. v. Mellen, 393 F.3d 175, 181-8......
-
The chronic failure to discipline prosecutors for misconduct: proposals for reform.
...Policing Prosecutors: What Role Can Appellate Courts Play?, 38 HOFSTRA L. REV. 835, 835-36 (2010) (quoting United States v. Wilson, 149 F.3d 1298, 1303 (11th Cir. 1998)); see also McGinniss, supra note 58, at 54-55; Judith A. McMorrow et al., Judicial Attitudes Toward Confronting Attorney M......
-
Constitutional Criminal Procedure: a Two Year Survey - James P. Fleissner and Jeffrey R. Harris
...Pt. A, subpts. 4(a), (e). 217. 138 F.3d 1398 (11th Cir. 1998). 218. Id. at 1400-02. 219. Id. at 1405. 220. Id. 221. Id. 222. Id. 223. 149 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 1998). 224. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) (1994). 225. Wilson, 149 F.3d at 1300-01. 226. Id. at 1300 n.3. 227. Id. 228. Id. at 1301 n......