United States v. Scott Allen Kopecky, 891 F.3d 340

Kopecky was indicted and convicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; sentenced to 144 months.
Coconspirators (Radillo, McGuire, Benson) testified that Kopecky received ~30–40 lbs of meth and distributed to others; phone and financial records corroborated.
After a meeting in Devils Lake, Kopecky and his girlfriend were stopped by Deputy Grabanski; a warrant led to their placement in the patrol car.
On direct examination, the deputy answered “I did not” when asked whether he obtained consent to search the van, prompting Kopecky’s mistrial motion for alleged prosecutorial misconduct (suggesting adverse inference from refusal to consent).
The district court denied a mistrial, immediately instructed the jury not to draw any inference from a refusal to consent to search, and the jury ultimately convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether eliciting testimony that Kopecky did not consent to a vehicle search constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring a mistrial	Kopecky: the question invited the jury to draw an adverse inference from his exercise of Fourth Amendment rights, depriving him of a fair trial	Government: any testimony was brief and ambiguous; strong independent evidence supported conviction; the court cured any prejudice with an instruction	Court: Even assuming the questioning was improper, it did not prejudice Kopecky’s substantial rights; denial of mistrial affirmed

United States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2000) (standards for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct and factors to assess prejudice)
United States v. New, 491 F.3d 369 (8th Cir. 2007) (prosecutorial comments must not infect trial with unfairness to deny due process)
United States v. Hernandez, 779 F.2d 456 (8th Cir. 1985) (single isolated remark less likely to produce cumulative prejudice)
United States v. Conrad, 320 F.3d 851 (8th Cir. 2003) (reversal where prosecutor repeatedly made improper comments)
United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir. 1977) (consistency of coconspirator testimony supports credibility)
United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (court defers to jury credibility determinations)
United States v. Pendleton, 832 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2016) (presumption that juries follow curative instructions)
United States v. Figueroa, 900 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1990) (curative actions can dispel potential prejudice from improper remarks)