Maurice Devonte Lee appeals his convictions and the 360-month sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of assault with intent to commit murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7(3), 113(a)(1), and possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Lee asserts that the district court erroneously denied his request for a mistrial, which was based on an excused jurors comments to a prospective juror regarding Lees decision to represent himself during the underlying criminal proceedings. Lee also assigns error to the district courts decision to refuse Lee the opportunity to poll remaining jurors regarding the excused jurors comments informing the remaining jurors why he was excused. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Zelaya, 908 F.3d 920, 929 (4th Cir. 2018). “Because a mistrial is so drastic a step, we will disturb the district courts refusal to grant one only in extraordinary circumstances, such as when evidence is admitted that would prejudice the defendant, and there is an overwhelming probability that the jury would be unable to heed a curative instruction to ignore it.” United States v. Taylor, 942 F.3d 205, 221-22 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find that the district court was well within its discretion to deny Lees motion for a mistrial and instead select a less drastic alternative by replacing the excused juror with an alternate juror after assuring itself that the remaining jurors could “remain fair and impartial.” See United States v. Smith, 919 F.3d 825, 834 (4th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that “the trial judge is in the best position” to determine whether jurors can “remain fair and impartial,” and that “the inquiry is committed to his discretion”). We also find no error in the district courts decision to collectively question the remaining jurors regarding the excused jurors exiting comments to ensure they could render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial. See id. (holding that the district court has “ample leeway to formulate the questions to be asked” and that the court must “balanc[e] the need to detect bias against the concern that inartful questioning could itself generate bias”); see also United States v. Gutierrez, 963 F.3d 320, 334 (4th Cir. 2020) (“The trial judge is in the best position to make judgments about the impartiality and credibility of potential jurors based on the judges own evaluations of demeanor evidence and of responses to questions.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 1112, 208 L.Ed.2d 555 (2021).
We therefore affirm the district courts judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.