UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4506
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FREDERICK PADGETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00099-IMK-1)
Submitted: November 5, 2010 Decided: April 11, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
PUBLIC DEFENDER, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellant.
William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Shawn Angus
Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Padgett appeals the judgment of conviction
entered after he was found by a jury to be guilty of one count
of assaulting a person with a dangerous weapon with intent to
cause harm while a federal inmate, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 113(a)(3) (2006), and one count of being a federal inmate in
possession of a prohibited object designed to be a weapon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1791(a)(2), (b)(3) (2006). Padgett
claims the district court abused its discretion denying his
motions for a mistrial and for a new trial based on two
instances where the jury was informed that Padgett was currently
a federal inmate. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a
motion for a mistrial, as well as the court’s refusal to order a
new trial, for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wallace,
515 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 2008) (motion for mistrial); United
States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006) (motion for
new trial). A mistrial should be granted if the court finds
that it has become a “manifest necessity” to stop the trial
because of some event that would prevent the defendant from
receiving a fair trial and an impartial jury. See Illinois v.
Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 461 (1973). A motion for a new trial
should be granted if there were substantial errors during the
2
course of the trial. See, e.g., Goodman v. Pennsylvania Tpk.
Comm’n, 293 F.3d 655, 676 (3d Cir. 2002).
The right to a fair trial is fundamental and the
presumption of innocence is a basic component of a fair trial.
Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976). “[C]ourts must
be alert to factors that may undermine the fairness of the fact-
finding process.” Id. In order to determine the impact of a
particular practice or trial event requires “close judicial
scrutiny.” Id. at 504. Courts must rely upon “reason,
principle, and common human experience.” Id.
We conclude there was no abuse of discretion. The
comments were isolated. The jury was not constantly reminded of
Padgett’s status, see Estelle, 425 U.S. at 504, and the court
gave a limiting instruction and subsequently properly instructed
the jury on what evidence it could consider prior to reaching a
verdict. Furthermore, the evidence of Padgett’s guilt was
substantial.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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