United States v. Sevilla-Acosta, No. 13-1887 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction of one count of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. The court concluded that defendant waived any claim that he was "forced" to stipulate that he lived at the residence at issue where a party introducing evidence cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on the district court's statement about a co-conspirator where the district court's curative instructions to the jury purged any prejudicial effect; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial; and the government did not improperly vouch for the credibility of two witnesses during closing argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal case. Defendant voluntarily stipulated that he lived at a residence used for marijuana distribution, and he waived his right to argue on appeal that the stipulation violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; while the district court's ruling on the admissibility of a co-conspirator's statement in the presence of the jury was error, the court took prompt curative action, including explaining its error and giving a curative instruction, and it did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a mistrial; government did not improperly vouch for its witnesses during its closing argument.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.