Published on:

Florida Prosecutors Seek Overbroad Police Testimony to Improperly Influence Jurors

In Florida, criminal defendants can face significant challenges during their trials, particularly when police testimony exceeds the boundaries set by prosecutors’ questions. Such overreaching testimony can unfairly influence a jury, leading to potentially unjust outcomes. Recently, a Florida court of appeals addressed a defendant’s challenge regarding broad police testimony, discussing how such situations are handled and when a mistrial might be considered versus when a curative jury instruction can be deemed sufficient.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the case involved a defendant charged with trafficking methamphetamine after an undercover operation. The undercover officer arranged a controlled buy, during which the defendant sold him 14 grams of methamphetamine. At trial, the defendant admitted to the sale but claimed entrapment, arguing he was coerced into selling a larger quantity than he intended. Despite his defense, the jury convicted him of trafficking.

On appeal, the defendant argued for a mistrial based on the undercover officer’s testimony, which he claimed went beyond the scope of the questions asked and included personal interpretations of his statements. The defense objected to parts of the recording from the controlled buy, citing the irrelevance and potential prejudice of the officers’ crosstalk. They contended that these elements unfairly impacted the jury’s view of the evidence.

The state responded that the trial court’s curative instruction was sufficient to address any potential prejudice caused by the officer’s testimony. During the trial, the undercover officer provided explanations for the defendant’s statements, interpreting them based on his experience with drug transactions. The defense objected to these interpretations, arguing they were speculative and prejudicial. Although the court sustained some objections, it allowed other explanations, prompting the defense to request a mistrial. The trial court denied this request but agreed to give a curative instruction, advising the jury to disregard the officer’s inadmissible opinions.

The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision, explaining that a mistrial is a drastic remedy reserved for cases where an error is so severe that it undermines the entire trial’s fairness. The court emphasized that a curative instruction is typically sufficient to mitigate any prejudice from improper testimony. In this case, the trial court had instructed the jury to disregard the officer’s inadmissible comments, and the appellate court found no reason to believe the jury did not follow this instruction.

The court further noted that the undercover officer’s testimony, while occasionally overreaching, was not the sole evidence against the defendant. The recordings from the controlled buy, which were admitted without objection, clearly demonstrated the defendant’s intent to sell a significant amount of methamphetamine. This evidence directly contradicted the defendant’s entrapment defense and supported the conviction. As a result of the appellate ruling, the defendant’s conviction will stand.

How to Fight Drug Charges in Florida

As the drug epidemic worsens, prosecutors and lawmakers are always seeking ways to be tougher in prosecuting drug offenses. This often incentivizes prosecutors to use questionable tactics that may impermissibly influence a jury to convict a defendant. If you or a loved one has been charged with a Florida drug crime, The dedicated Florida criminal defense attorneys with the Mayberry Law firm can help you fight the charges against you. Our dedicated criminal lawyers have successfully challenged the admissibility of evidence and testimony concerning drug crimes, resulting in dismissals and acquittals for our clients. If you have been charged with a crime, contact our office at 813-444-7435 or email me directly at to talk about your case.

Contact Information