At page 884 cited at this page1 citing case
- United States v. Charles Eugene Monks, United States of Am. v. Gary A. Holt, 774 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1985).publishedCf. United States v. DeCarlo, 446 F.2d 883, 884 (9th Cir.1971) (per curiam) (where evidence of guilt is overwhelming, motion for mistrial because of exposure to improper character evidence may properly be denied).
v.
James John DeCARLO, Appellant
De Carlo was convicted of robbing a suburban branch of the United States National Bank at Portland, Oregon.
He has one point on appeal: A government witness blurted out something about his escaping from the Rocky Butte local jail while he was incarcerated after his arrest. For this a timely motion was made for a mistrial. The motion was denied.
The point here does not amount to much. The evidence was overwhelming. De Carlo was photographed in the act and he was found with “bait” money in his possession. Also, his fingerprints were found at the scene of the event. Thus, it was not error to deny a motion for a mistrial. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284.