United States v. Cahoon , 102 F. App'x 289 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4724
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
EMMETT LEE CAHOON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern. David A. Faber, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-59)
Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: June 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David C. Sutton, JAMES & SUTTON, P.A., Greenville, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, John H.
Bennett, John Stuart Bruce, Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Emmett Lee Cahoon was convicted
on two counts of possession of stolen firearms and aiding and
abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(j), 2 (2000).
The district court sentenced Cahoon to concurrent twenty-one month
prison terms on each count. Cahoon timely appealed.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court
should have granted Cahoon’s motion for a new trial because the
government improperly brought a number of guns into the courtroom
that proved to be inadmissible. To obtain a new trial on a claim
of prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show that the
prosecutor’s conduct or remarks were improper, and that the conduct
or remarks prejudicially affected his substantial rights so as to
deprive him of a fair trial. United States v. Scheetz, 293 F.3d
175, 185 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 963 (2002). We review
the denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Russell, 221 F.3d 615, 619 (4th Cir. 2000).
We find, as did the district court, that the prosecution
acted improperly in bringing the guns into the courtroom. To
determine whether this improper conduct prejudicially affected
Cahoon’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial,
this Court considers several factors, including:
(1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s
[conduct] had a tendency to mislead the jury
and to prejudice the defendant; (2) whether
the [conduct was] isolated or extensive; (3)
- 2 -
absent the [conduct], the strength of
competent proof introduced to establish the
guilt of the defendant; (4) whether the
[conduct was] deliberately placed before the
jury to divert attention to extraneous
matters; (5) whether the prosecutor’s [conduct
was] invited by improper conduct of defense
counsel; and (6) whether curative instructions
were given to the jury.
Scheetz, 293 F.3d at 186. Given the substantial evidence
supporting the jury’s guilty verdict, the fact that the district
court found as a fact that the guns were brought into the courtroom
in good faith, and taking the remaining factors into consideration,
we find that the prosecutor’s conduct did not prejudicially affect
Cahoon’s substantial rights so as to deprive him of a fair trial.
Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Cahoon’s motion for a new trial based on
prosecutorial misconduct.
For these reasons, we affirm Cahoon’s convictions. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -