D istri ct Ju d g e Je d S
. R ak o ff o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern * D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. T he C l er k of the C our ti s di r ect ed t o amend t he ca pt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. ** 09-3176 -cr U.S. v. Ort iz (A

ria s-Javi er) UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1, 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L R U LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R IN A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PART Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A ta s t at ed t er m of the U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s for t he S econd C i r cui t , hel d at t he D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 16 dayof Sept ember , t w o t hous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF,

D is tr i ct Judge
. *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel l ee , v. N o. 09- 3176- cr RUBEN ANTONI O ARI AS- J AVI ER, D ef endant

-Appel l ant , RO NY OR TI Z, RI CA RD O O RTI Z, D e fen da n ts . **

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : P E T E R F
. L A N G R O C K , L a n g ro c k S p e r r y & W o o l, L L P , M id d leb u ry , V e rm o n t.W h il e o f n o co n seq u en ce to an yiss u e o n a p p e al, w e n o te t h at t h e d istri ct co u rt ’s * j ud gm ent of conv i ct i on app ears t o contai n an err or. W hil e A ri as- Javi er w as f o u n d g u ilt y aft era j ur yt r i al , t he j udgm ent of convi ct i on i ndi cat es t hat he ent er ed a pl ea of gui l t y . T he p arti es a re d ir ec ted to n o ti fythe d istric t c o u rt o f th e d iscrep an cyso that itm ayen ter a corr ect ed j udgm entas w arr ant ed. 2 A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E : M I C H A E L M
. R O SE N S A F T , A ssist an t U n it ed St at es A t t or ney( M i chae l A
. L evy , A s s ist ant U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y , o n the br i ef ), f or Pr eet B h ara ra, U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne yfo r the S o u thern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r the S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (R ich a rd J. H o lw e ll, Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND DE CR E E D t h a tt h e j u d g me n te n t e r e d o n J u l y1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , i s AF F I RMED
. * D e f e n d a n t R u b e n A n to n io A ria s-J a v ier , w h o sta n d s c o n v icte d o f c o n sp ira c yto di s t r i but e and pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e the contr ol l ed s ubs t ance comm onl yknow n as “ec s t as y , ” s ee 21 U
. S. C
. § 84 6 , argues he w as deni ed a f ai rt r i al beca us e the governm ent i m pr oper l yvouched f

ort he cr edi bi l i t yof a c ooper at i ng w i t nes s w hen, i n r ebut t al s um m at i on, t he p ros e c u to r sta ted , “H e t old y ou t he truth. ” T ri al T r. at31 3. W e assum e t he p art i es’ fami l i ar i t yw i t h t he f

ac ts and r ecor d of pr i orpr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas
n e c e s s a r yt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. A defe ndantw h o see k s a new t r i al bas ed on a pr os ecut or ’ s r emar ks i n s um m at i on bear s “a he avybur den, beca us e the mi s conductal l eged m us t be so s ever e and s i gni fi cantas t o r es ul ti n t he deni al of [hi s ] r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al
. ” U ni t ed St at es v. L ocas ci o, 6 F. 3d 924, 9453

( 2d C i r . 1993) ; acc or d U ni t ed S t at es v. C ar acappa, - - - F. 3d

- - - - , 2010 W L 2884970, at*7 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ). S u ch ca ses a re “ rare,” U n it ed S tat es v . R o d ri g u e z , 9 6 8 F .2 d 1 3 0 , 1 4 2 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 2 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ), b e c a u se e v e n w h e n a su m m a tio n c o m m e n t is i m pr oper , w e mustcons i deri t“i n t he cont extof the ent i r e tr i al ” t o det erm ine if there w as “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce” w arr ant i ng a new t r i al , U ni t ed St at es v. T hom as , 377 F. 3d 232, 244 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. R el evant fac t or s i ncl ude “the s ever i t yof t he [al l eged] m i s conduct , t he m eas ur es adopt ed t o cur e the mi s conduct , and the ce r t ai nt yof

co n v ict ion ab sen t th e m isco n d u ct. ” S ee U n it ed S tat es v . S p inelli , 5 5 1 F
. 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 7 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). A p p ly in g th e se p rin c ip les , w e c o n c lu d e th a t A ria s-J a v ier w a s n o t d e n ied a f a ir trial. T he pr os ecut i on i s per m i t t ed vi gor ous l yt o ar gue fort he j ur yt o fi nd i t s w i t nes s es
cr edi bl e as l ong as i tdoes notl i nk i t s ow n cr edi bi l i t yt o t hatof the w i t nes s , s ee U ni t ed St at es
v. R i ver a, 971 F. 2d 876, 884 ( 2d C i r . 1992) , ori m pl yt he exi st ence of extr aneous pr oof

su p p o rt ing the w itn ess’s c red ibil ity , see U n it ed S tat es v . B ag aric, 7 0 6 F
. 2 d 4 2 , 6 1 (2d C ir
. 1983)
. N ei t heroccurr ed her e. T h e sin g le c h a llen g e d sta tem e n t – “ H e to ld y o u th e tru th ” – w a s m a d e in re sp o n se to a def ens e s um m at i on t hat for cef ul l yat t acke d t he w i t nes s ’ s cr edi bi l i t yand bl unt l yas s er t ed: “H e does n’ tt el l t he trut h. ” Tri al T r . at301. W e have r epeated ly not ed that“w hen the defe ns e couns el have a t t acke d .
. . t he cr edi bi l i t yof the governm ent[w i t nes s es ] , t he pr os ecut ori s ent i t l ed t o r epl yw i t h r ebut t i ng l anguage s ui t abl e t o t he occa s i on. ” See U ni t ed St at es v . Pr a e t o r i u s , 6 2 2 F. 2 d 1 0 5 4 , 1 0 6 0
- 6 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 7 9 ) ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m ar ks4

om i t t ed) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. C arr , 424 F. 3d 213, 227 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( s ame) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . R ivera , 2 2 F
. 3 d 4 3 0 , 4 3 7 -38 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ) (sa m e). R ev iew ing co u rt s, m o reo v er,
re c o g n ize th a t su m m a tio n s – p a rticu lar ly re b u ttal su m m a tio n s – a re n o t f u llyc o n stru c ted in advan c e , b u ta r e f

r e q u e nt l yi m pr ovi s ed, s ee D onnel l yv. D eC hr i s t ofor o, 416 U
. S. 637, 646- 47 ( 1974) , and “i nevi t abl y char ged w i t h emot i on, ” U ni t ed S t at es v. W exl er , 79 F. 2d 526, 530 ( 2d C i r . 1935)
. T hus , w hi l e w e w i l l not excus e i dent i fi ed pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , nei t her

w i l l w e l i ght l yi nferm i s conduct– s uch as vouchi ng – fr om everyr emar k per t ai ni ng t o t he

cr edi bi l i t yof pr os ecut i on w i t nes s es . See gener al l y D onnel l y v. D eC hr i s t ofor o, 416 U
. S. at 646- 47. N o s uch i nfer ence i s w arr ant ed her e bec aus e w hen the cha l l enged r emar k i s vi ew ed in c o n te x t, it is c le a rl yn o t th e p ro s e c u to r’ s p ro f e s s io n o f a p e rs o n a l b e l i e f b u t , ra th e r, a concl us i on t hathe ur ged t he j ur y t o dr aw fr om t he t ot al i t y of the evi dence
. See U ni t ed St at es
v. Per ez, 144 F. 3d 204, 210 ( 2d C i r . 1998) ( obs er vi ng t hat “w hat m i ghts uper fi ci al l yappea r t o be i m pr o p e r v o u c h i n g f o r wi t n e s s c r e d i b i l i t y ma y tu r n o u t o n c l o s e r e x a mi n a t i o n t o be per m i s s i bl e r efe r ence t o t he evi dence i n t he cas e”)
. M om ent s befor e m aki ng t he cha l l enged

s t at ement , t he pr os ecut orur ged the j ur y “c are ful l yand thought ful l y[t o] cons i der[t he

w i t nes s ’ s ] t es t i m ony , ” to “thi nk back t o hi s demeanor[and] t o how he ans w er ed the q u e s tio n s ,” a n d to “ [ t] h in k b a c k to th e littl e d e ta ils h e to ld y o u a b o u t.” T ri a l T r. a t 3 1 3 . A pr os ecut ori s “ent i t l ed t o ar gue for cef ul l yan d v igo rou slyt o t he j ur yi n s uppor tof [a ]

w i t nes s ’ s cr edi bi l i t y. . . bas ed on evi dence i n t he r ecor d. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Spi nel l i , 551 F. 3d5

at169. W e furt herobs er ve thati n ar gui ng w i t nes s cr edibili ty o n r ebut t al , t he pr os ecut or
r efe r r ed the j ur y back t o ar gum ent s he had m ade on thi s poi nti n hi s m ai n s um m at i on. T her e, he cl ear l yacknow l edged that“ul t i m at el y ” i tw as t he j ur y ’ s “j ob t o eval uat e” the t es t i m ony of the coope r at i ng w i t nes s . T r i al T r . at 293. A ccor di ngl y , w e concl ude t hatt he cha l l enged

s t at ement , vi ew ed i n cont ext , di d notcons t i tut e i m pr opervouchi ng. E ven i f w e w er e t o hol d ot herw i s e, how ever , any err or di d not cr eat e s uch “s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce” as t o w arr antr ever s al
. I n t hi s reg ard , w e not e thatt he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed defe ns e couns el ’ s cont empora neous obj ect i on and t hen i ns t ruct ed t he j ur y , dur i ng i t s char ge, th a t w itn e ss c re d ib ili tyw a s s o lelyf o r it to d e c id e a n d th a t “[ a ]n yo p in io n b y c o u n se l th a t a

w itn e s s w a s o r w a s n o t te llin g th e tru th is i r r e l e v a n t a n d s h o u ld b e g iv e n . . . n o w e ig h t.” T r i al T r . at320. I n ur gi ng ot herw i s e, A r i as - J avi er ar gues t hat w i t houtt he coope r at or ’ s t es t i m ony , t he evi dence of hi s gui l tw as nots t r o n g. T he ar gum enti s m i s di r ect ed fort he r eas on s t at ed by th e g o v e rn m e n t. T he ques t i on i s notw hethert hi s w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m onyp la y ed a r ol e i n t he j ur y ’ s gui l t yver di ct ; i tu n d o u bt edl ydi d. R ather , t he ques t i on i s w hether , i n t he cont extof t he ent i r e tr ial , t he governm ent ’ s chal l enged s t at ement r es ul t ed i n s ubs t ant i al pr ej udi ce deny i ng A r i as - J avi era fa i rt r i al
. See U ni t ed St at es v. Per ez, 144 F. 3d at 210. B eca us e the sta tem e n t

– if e rro r at a ll

– w a s n o t se v e re , the d istric t co u rt’s c u ra tiv e m e a su re s s u f f ice d to
ens ur e a f

ai r t r i al
. S e e U ni t ed St at es v. E l i as , 285 F. 3d 183, 192 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( i n abs ence6

o f im m ed iat e cu rati v e i n stru cti o n , cu rati v e i n stru cti o n in co u rt ’s ch arg e w as su ff ici en t w h ere p rose cu tor’s m isco n d u ct w as n o t sev ere ). W e have cons i der ed A r i as - J avi er ’ s ot herar gum ent s on appea l and conc l ude thatt hey

a re w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt