U.S. v. Zitt

In prosecution on drug conspiracy charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s request for mistrial based on witness’ testimony that witness and defendant were in jail together. While defendant argued that witness’ response to question was prejudicial because it suggested that defendant had prior criminal history, defendant assumed risk where: (1) defendant counsel asked question that generated said response; and (2) witness’ testimony was logical response to question as to whether defendant had known that witness was in jail at particular time. Moreover, witness’ reference to defendant’s criminal history was brief, and evidence strongly implicated defendant in charged offenses.