United States of America v. Michael Stefan Prime - CEDAR

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4996 UNITED STATES v. PRIME[11] In this case, application of the Dickson and Jeffriesfactors suggests that the extrinsic evidence did not affect theverdict. Although the jury had access to the evidence forapproximately three hours, jury review of the Storer reportwas not prejudicial, as it did not include anything that had notalready been testified to at trial. The fingerprint exhibits werealso cumulative of what had been testified to and admitted attrial. Likewise, the money order, checks, and e-mail correspondencewere cumulative of evidence introduced at trial,and would have been admissible had the prosecution chosento lay the proper foundation. As the judge stated during hisattempt to resolve this problem, “if [money orders, or otheritems] had been incriminating, I’m sure the Governmentwould have offered it . . . .”[12] Prime’s main concern relates to his and Cahill’s priorconviction reports. The court, however, after specificallyinquiring of the jury, found that the jury had not reviewed thecertified copies of convictions of either Cahill or Prime.Moreover, the court determined that even if the jury had seenthe reports, they would not have affected the verdict. The onlyevidence in addition to the five felonies Prime admitted toduring his testimony was a conviction for possession of anincendiary device. If the jury had discovered this evidence, itwould not have affected the verdict because evidence introducedat trial already established that Prime had in the pastarmed himself with weapons and had obtained stun guns.With regard to Cahill’s prior convictions, there is no possibilitythat that information would have affected the verdictbecause as the judge commented, “I’m not sure the jurywould be surprised to find that Mr. Cahill had some prior convictions,since everyone else in the apartment seemed to . . . .”In addition to the lack of prejudice, the judge also issued twoseparate curative instructions, which under Jeffries, weighs infavor of finding that the government established, beyond areasonable doubt, that the extrinsic evidence did not affect theverdict. Jeffries, 114 F.3d at 1491.
[13] The extrinsic evidence given to the jury was cumulativeand non-prejudicial, and the court gave proper curativeinstructions. Therefore, in light of the entire record, we concludethat the extrinsic evidence had no impact on the verdict.We affirm the denial of the motion for mistrial.AFFIRMED.UNITED STATES v. PRIME4997
Page 1 and 2: FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT
Page 3 and 4: UNITED STATES v. PRIMEof 18 U.S.C.
Page 5 and 6: admission of expert testimony regar
Page 7 and 8: UNITED STATES v. PRIME4987Following
Page 9: tained its accreditation with the A
Page 12 and 13: 4992 UNITED STATES v. PRIMEmitment
Page 14 and 15: 4994 UNITED STATES v. PRIMEonly con

United States of America v. Michael Stefan Prime - CEDAR

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?