IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30790

Summary Calendar

GEORGE LEE,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

VENETIA MICHAEL, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:10-CV-1712

Before WIENER, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant George Lee, Louisiana prisoner # 437722, was

convicted by a jury of five counts of forcible rape and three counts of second

degree kidnapping. He was sentenced to a 32-year term of imprisonment. State

v. Lee, 844 So. 2d 970, 974-75, 1000 (La. Ct. App. 2003). Lee filed an application

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in federal court, claiming, inter alia, that the prosecution

violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment by commenting on his failure to

testify during closing argument. The district court denied relief on the ground

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 9, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-30790 Document: 00511849796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
No. 11-30790

that it was clear from the record that the prosecution was not commenting on

Lee’s failure to testify, but was instead using the trial evidence to contradict

Lee’s taped statement that was played to the jury. The district court

nevertheless granted a certificate of appealability on this issue.

A federal court may not grant habeas relief on any claim that was

adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the state court’s

ruling was the result of “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an

unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by

the Supreme Court of the United States,” or if the state court decision “was

based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d). 

A prosecutor’s comment on a defendant’s failure to testify violates the

Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Griffin v. California, 380

U.S. 609, 613-15 (1965); United States v. Martinez-Larraga, 517 F.3d 258, 266

(5th Cir. 2008). Remarks made by a prosecutor must be considered in context. 

United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 335 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (direct

appeal). The Fifth Amendment is violated if the prosecutor’s “manifest intent

. . . must have been to comment on the defendant’s silence” or if “the character

of the remark [was] such that the jury would naturally and necessarily construe

it as a comment on the defendant’s silence.” Cotton v. Cockrell, 343 F.3d 746,

751 (5th Cir. 2003). There is no manifest intent to comment on a defendant’s

failure to testify if there is another “equally plausible” explanation for a

prosecutor’s remarks. United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385, 1406 (5th Cir.

1992) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The relevant question with

regard to the character of such a remark is not whether a jury “possibly or even

probably” would view it as a comment on the defendant’s silence, but whether

a jury would necessarily construe it as such. Id.

When read in context of the record as a whole, it is clear that the

prosecutor was contending that the trial evidence showed Lee’s taped statement

2

Case: 11-30790 Document: 00511849796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2012
No. 11-30790

explaining that he and one of the victims had had consensual sex simply made

no sense. The prosecutor’s comments were consistent with the trial evidence. 

See Delgado, 672 F.3d at 336. An attorney may argue to the jury the “inferences

and conclusions” that it should draw from the evidence so long as counsel’s

assertions are based on the evidence. Id. The prosecutor’s closing argument in

this case sounds as a comment on the defense’s failure to undermine or rebut the

State’s evidence rather than a reference to Lee’s silence. See Montoya v. Collins,

955 F.2d 279, 287 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Guzman, 781 F.2d 428, 432

(5th Cir. 1986). Lee has not shown that the district court erred in determining

that the state court’s adjudication of his claim was not unreasonable in light of

the facts and clearly established federal law. Charles v. Thaler, 629 F.3d 494,

498 (5th Cir. 2011); see § 2254(d)(1), (2). 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-30790 Document: 00511849796 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/09/2012