Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing prejudicial gang-related evidence and failing to grant a mistrial, thereby violating the defendant's right to a fair trial

The focus of this petition is the prejudice visited on Hiram Ross (Ross) as a result of a series of abuses of the discretion by the district court before and during the trial conducted in the Eastern District of New York . The foundation of the trial court’s errors was its ruling s, before and during trial, that had the effect of minimizing the significance of the prejudice. These errors can find no sanction in this Court’s jurisprudence, in the legal provisions of applicable statutes and rules, or indeed in the Constitution itself. The extent of the prejudice and its compounding effect is best understood by posing three questions that, we subm it, amply justify the granting of a writ of certiorari in light of the Second Circuit’s affirm ance of the judgment of the district court. These are: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing the governm ent to introduce highly prejudicial evidence and argument linking Ross to a violent criminal gang, even thoug h this evidence was wholly unnecessary to the governm ent’s proof to the jury, and served no purpose other than to prejudice Ross in the eyes of the jury. 2. Whether, by failing to grant Ross’s motion for a mistrial based on the prejudicial use of “gang”-related language by not only the government and but also by Ross’s co-defendant on cross-exam ination, the district court abused its discretion. ii 3. Whether the district court further exacerbated the prejudice by inappropriately empaneling an anonym ous and partially sequestered jury. Such an action not at all subtly communicated to the jurors that there were dang ers against which they were being “protected” by the court, based of the characteristics and history of the defendants. What those dang ers were came into high relief as the governm ent (and the co-defendant) repeatedly hammered the jury with increasing ly outrag eous – but in no way relev ant or necessary – details about Ross’s affiliation with an extrem ely ruthless and violent gang. All of these questions can be viewed in the aggregate as supporting a grant of a writ of certiorari to enable this Court to review and rule on the impropriety of the cram ped prejudice determ inations highlighted herein.