FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT N ove m be r 2, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10083 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo . 0 0
- 0 0 0 4 1
- C R
- F T M- 2 9 DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e ,

v ersu s W I L L I A M R . D O W N S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 2, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We areunpersua ded by Downs’s c laim of error base d on the district court’s jury instruction 1 on the law of

conspirac y . During the di scussion of the jury instructions, the di strict court stated that it p lann e d to us e the patte rn jur y ins tr uc tio n and went ov e r the patte rn ins tr uc tio n o n c on sp ir a c y , to which neither

party objected. Ge n er all y , district courts havebroad discretion in formulatingjury instructions provided that the cha rg e as a wh o l e accurately

ref lects the lawand the f

acts. United States v. Prather, 205 F .3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000). W e wi l l n o t reverse a conviction on the ba sis of a jur y c ha rg e un le ss t

heiss ue s o f l aw w e repre se nte d in a c c urate ly , o r t he c ha rg e imp ro pe rly guided the j ur

y in s u c h a s u

b s ta nti a l w ay a s to v io late d

u e p r o c e s s . I d
. In th e in s ta nt c ase, the district court used this Circuit’s pattern jur y instruction on conspirac y , the use of which weapprove d in Unit e d St ate s v. Tru

jil lo, 14 6 F. 3d 83 8, 84 6 (11 th Cir . 199 8)
. In fa c t, in Tru jil lo, wesp e c if

ic a lly reje cted a claim similar to Downs’s
-- th at th e dis trict court e rre d by instructing thejury

that the g overnme nt did not have to prove that all people name d in the indictment w er e members of the s c h e m e - - an d h e l d th at th e p att e r n j ur y i n s tr u c t i o na c c ur at e l y r e f

l e c t e d th e e l e m e nt s o f

c o n s p i r a c y. Moreove r, the district cour t’s was e ntirely consistent with the indictment, which alleg ed that Downs and F ields conspired w ith “persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury .” Ac cording ly , therewas no a bu seof dis c re tio n, or

plain error , o n th is b a sis
.

2 W illia m D o w n s a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s S e c o n d A m e n d e d J u d g m e n t,
e n te r e d a f

te r a ju r y v e r d ic t f

in d in g h im g u ilty o f

p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i f ty gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne ba s e ( “ c r a c k” ) , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 841( a ) (1)
a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( iii) , a n d c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it th e s a m e , in v io la t i o n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 846. O n a pp eal , D o w ns a r gue s tha t( 1) the j ur y s e l e c t i on pr oc e s s r e s ul t e d i n a
r a c i a l l y i m ba l a nc e d j ur y , the r e by vi ol a t i ng hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s , a nd ( 2) the di stri ctcourter re d b y f

ai l i ng t o sua spon t e d ec lare a m i stri al base d o n p rose cut ori al
r e ma r k s d u r i n g o p e n i n g s t a t e me n t . A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. 1 W e r e vi e w c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o the j ur y s el ect i on pr oc e s s de novo. U ni t ed S t at es v. G ri sham , 63 F . 3d 10 74 , 10 77 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 5 ). N o rm al l y, w hen3

w e r e vi e w a c l a i m of pr os e c ut or i a l m i s c onduc t , w e a s s e s s ( 1) w he the rthe
c ha l l e nge d c om m e nt s w e r e i m pr ope ra nd ( 2) i f s o, w he the rthe y pr e

j udi c e d the de f e nd an t ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D e l ga do, 56 F
. 3d 1357, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 1995)
. H ow e ve r , w he r e , as he r e , a de f e nda ntdi d notobj e c tt o the al l eg ed p ro secu t o ri al m i sco n d u ct , w e w i l l rev erse o n l y fo r p l ai n erro r t h ati s so obvi ous tha tf

ai l u re t o c or r e c ti tw oul d j e opa r di z e the f a i r ne s s a nd i nt e gr i ty of the tr i a l
. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a i l ey , 123 F
. 3d 1381, 1400 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( i n the c ont e xt of prosec ut or’ s c l osi ng ar gu m ent ). T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a r e the s e . O n J une 14, 2000, D o w ns w a s i ndi c t e d, a l ong
w ith c o - d e f

e n d a n t S o p h ia L a v e r n e F ie ld s , f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te f i f ty gr a m s or m o r e of c r a c k, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) , a nd c ons p i racy t o c om m i tthe s a m e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. § 846. D o w ns and F i el ds pl ed no tgu i l ty t o t he charges and p roce eded t o separ at e j ury tr ia ls , p u r s u a n t to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f D o w n s ’s m o tio n to s e v e rth e tr ia ls
. A t D o w n s ’s tr ia l, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n d u c te d v o ird ir e o f th e ju r y p o o l. A l th o u g h th e t ran s c r i p td o es n o trefl ectth e race o f an y o f t h e p ro sp ect i v e j u ro rs,
w he n the pa r t i e s w e r e m a ki ng the i rpe r e m pt or y c ha l l e nge s , D ow ns obj e c t e d t o the la c k o f A f r ic a n - A m e r ic a n s o n th e p a n e l , a l t h o u g h h e d id n o t p o in t to a n y s p e c if ic pere m pt ory c hal l enge exerc i se d b y the go vernm ent . D ef en se coun se l then n ot ed4

thatD ow ns w as an A fr i ca n-A m er i ca n and thati tw ou l d b e di ff i cul t“ t o fi nd a j ury of hi s pee rs w hen t h er e [w er e] no ne” there
. T he di stri ctcourtas ked cou nsel w hat he w a nt e d i tt o do a boutthi s , t o w hi c h c ouns e l r e pl i e d “ I do [ n o t ] k n o w w ha ty ou c a n d o . . . I ju s t w a n t to n o te m y o b je c tio n to t h e a r r a y b a s e d u p o n th e f a c t th a t it [i s] ra ci al l y i m bal ance d. ” A ft er the courtno t ed D ow ns’ s obj ec t i on , coun se l then
re qu es t ed t hatthe court“ di spanel the j ury a nd ge t o ne w i th m ore [A fr i ca n-A m erican s] on i t . ” T he di stri ctcourtdeni ed D ow ns’ s r equest , no t i ng that D ow ns ha d notm a de a ny s how i ng of pr e j udi c e or a d i scri m i na t or y s e l e c t i on pr oc e s s , de s pi t e tha tthe r e w e r e no A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a ns on t h e j ur y pa ne l
. D ow ns
m a de no f

ur the robj e c t i ons , a nd at no poi ntdi d he a s k the c our tt o hol d a he a r i ng
r e g a r d in g th e ju r y s e le c tio n p r o c e s s . A f t e rthe j ur y ha d be e n s e l e c t e d, the di s tr i c t cour te xpl a i ne d t o the j ur y the pu rpose of the part i es ’ op eni ng st at em ent s - - t o exp l ai n t he i ss ues a nd sum m ar i ze the f act s t h at t h ey e xpe c t e d the e vi de nc e t o s how - - a nd c a ut i one d the j ur y tha tthe op eni ng st at em ent s w er e “ no tt o b e c on si d er ed
. . . a s evi dence i n t he ca se or as i n st ru ct i ons of

the l a w . ” T he gove r nm e nt ’ s ope ni ng s t a t e m e nti nc l ude d the f o llo w in g : T h is is a c a s e a b o u t . . . c r a c k c o c a i n e . Y o u a r e h e r e to d a y b e c a u s e . . . D o w n s w a s d r iv in g in a r e n ta l c a rf r o m M ia m i
. . . t o w a r d s th e S t. P e t e r s bur g a r e a . Y ou a r e he r e t oda y be c a us e i n tha tr e nt a l c a rtha the5

w as a pas se ng eri n t here w as ov erfi fty gra m s o r m o re o f
. . . cr ac k coca i ne. T he gove r nm e ntthen s um m a r i z e d the f a c t s tha tw oul d be e s t a bl i s he d dur i ng the tr ia l. A t n o p o in t d id D o w n s o b je c t d u r in g th e g o v e r n m e n t’s o p e n in g s ta te m e n t. T he gove r nm e ntt h en pr e s e nt e d the f ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e dur i ng i t s c a s e - i nch i e f
. O n J une 6, 1999, O f f i c e rJ ohn W i l c ox of

the F l or i da H i ghw a y P a tr ol ( “ F H P ” ) w a s on duty on I nt e r s t a t e 75 i n N a pl e s, F l o ri d a w he n he obs e r ve d a L i n co l n T o w n C ar sp eed i n g . O ffi cer W i l co x p u l l ed th e car o v er an d ask ed F i el d s,
w ho w a s dr i vi ng, f

orhe rdr i ve r ’ s l i c e nse. W i l c ox not i c e d tha tthe phot o on the l i c e ns e tha tF i e l ds pr ovi de d hi m , be l ongi ng t o a “ T ha i s L e on, ” di d n o tl ook l i ke F i e l ds
. H e a l s o not i c e d tha tD ow ns ke pttur ni ng a r ound a nd l ook i n g ba c k a tthe p o lic e c a ra n d a p p e a r e d “e x tr e m e ly n e r v o u s .” F H P O ff i ce r M i chae l G ri der, ac com pani ed by a ca ni ne, ar ri ved s o o n af t er W i l c ox t o a s s i s tw i th the tr a f f i c s t op. W h i l e O f

f i c e rW i l c ox w a s i s s ui ng a w a r ni ng fo r th e sp eed i n g v i o l at i o n , O ffi cer G ri d er al so n o t i ced th at th e d riv e r ’s licen se pi cture di d n otl oo k l i ke F i el d s. A ft erno t i ng thatthe ca r w as a r ent al , O ff i ce r G r id e ra s k e d to s e e th e r e n ta l a g r e e m e n t. F ie ld s p r o v id e d th e r e n ta l a g r e e m e n t,
w hi c h i ndi c a t e d tha tthe c a rw a s r e nt ed t o S ophi a F i e l ds a nd di d nota l l ow a ny ad d i t io n a l d r iv ers. W h en ask ed ab o u tth e d i fferi n g n am es o n th e d ri v er’ s l i cen seThe g overnme nt played the tapeof the c o nv er s ation to the jury , but the transcript of the 2 conver sation was not included in the record on appeal. Howeve r, th e p re s en tenceinvestigation 6 a nd the r e nt a l a gr e e me nt , Fi e l ds c l a i me d tha tSoph i a Fi e l ds w a s he rc ou s i n a nd had
re nt ed t he ca r. O f f i c e rG r i de rthe n a s ke d F i e l ds w he the rthe r e w e r e drugs orw e a pons i ns i de the ve hi cl e an d s he r e s ponde d no. W i l c ox obt a i ne d F i e l ds ’ s c ons e ntt o s e a r c h the
ve hi c l e . A ft e rO f

f i c e rG r i de ri ns truc t e d D ow ns t o e xi tthe ve hi c l e s o tha tthe of f i c e r s c oul d s e a r c h i t , D ow ns gotoutof the ve hi c l e a nd s t a r t e d t o y e l l a tF i e l ds f orc ons e nt i ng t o the s e a r c h. B oth of f i c e r s obs e r ve d D ow ns w a vi ng hi s ha nds
a r o u n d a s h e y e lle d a t F ie ld s a n d a s k e d h e rto w ith d r a w th e c o n s e n t. A ttha tpoi nt , O f

f i c e rG r i de r ’ s c a ni ne a l e r t e d t o t h e o d o r of drugs a tthe
s e a m s o f b o t h f

r o n t d o o r s a n d a t th e f lo o rb o a r d u n d e rth e f

r o n t p a s s e n g e rs e a t. A ft erG ri der r eturned h i s c ani ne t o h i s vehi cl e, he ag ai n app roac hed t he T ow n C ar , a t w h ic h tim e D o w n s s t e p p e d in f r o n t o f h im w ith h is h a n d s o u ts tr e tc h e d a s if to
s t op G r i de rf

r om m ovi ng pa s thi m , a nd a s ked G r i de rw ha the w a s doi ng. D ow ns the n s t a t e d that h e k ne w hi s r i ght s a nd tha tO f f i c e rG r i de rw a s nota l l ow e d t o go back i ns i de the ve hi c l e . O ve r thi s ob j e c t i on , G r i de r r e tur ne d t o the T ow n C ar
w h e r e h e d is c o v e r e d tw o c r a c k c o c a in e “c o o k ie s ” u n d e r n e a th th e p a s s e n g e rs e a t,
w hi c h D ow ns ha d va c a t e d be f or e the s e a r c h. D ow ns a nd F i e l ds w e r e a r r e s t e d a nd pl ac ed i nsi de of W i l cox’ s c rui se r, w hi ch w as equi pp ed w i th a re cordi ng devi ce . 2repo rt

(" PSI " ), wh ich was un conte ste d, indic ate d th at bo th F ie lds and Do wn s ma dec omm e nts consistent with knowledg e of theprese nce of drug s in the vehicle. 7 S h o rt l y a f

t e rthe de f

e nda nt s ’ a r r e s t s , D ow ns s poke t o F i e l ds ’ s br othe r , B y r on J one s , w ho t e s t i f

i e d f o rth e g o v e r n me n t . J o n e s s a i d th a tb o th Fi e l d s a n d D o w ns had called h im af

t erthey w er e a rr es t ed, and t hatD ow ns t ol d h i m thatF i el ds had
n o th in g to d o w ith th e d ru g s . J o n e s t o ld D o w n s to “f e s s u p ” a b o u t th e d ru g s , to
w hi c h D ow ns r e s ponde d tha the w oul d do s o. D o w n s d id n o t p r e s e n t a n y e v i d e n c e in h is d e f e n s e . T h e ju r y f

o u n d h im gui l ty a s c ha r ge d. H e s ubs e que nt l y w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 260 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt
on bo th cou nt s, w i th t he t er m s t o ru n co ncurrent l y, fol l ow ed by 5 yea rs ’ supervi se d
r e le a s e . D o w n s a p p e a l e d h i s c o n v ic tio n s a n d w a s a p p o in te d n e w c o u n s e l f o rh is
a ppe a l
. W e a f

f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i o n s on di r e c ta ppe a l , i n w hi c h he a r gue d tha tthe gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e w as i n suf f i c i e ntt o s how tha the kne w a boutthe pr e s e nc e of the drugs , ortha t h e know i ngl y pos s e s s e d the m . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow ns , N o. 01 -108 21 (11t h C i r. S ep. 6, 20 01 ) ( un pu bl i shed). D ow ns the n f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o va c a t e , s e ta s i de orc or r e c ta s e nt e nc e pur s ua nt t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 25 5, al l egi ng se vera l grou nd s o f in effec t i ve as si st ance of bo th t ri al
an d app el l at e c ou nsel i ncl ud i ng , i n p er t i nentpart , thathi s app el l at e c ou nsel w as i ne f f e c t i ve f orf a i l i n g t o obt a i n a nd r e vi e w tr a ns c r i pt s of the e nt i r e tr i a l
. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d the § 2255 a s t o the c l a i m s ba s e d on i ne f f e c t i ve assi st an ce ofTo th e e xtent D o wn s urg e s th at t h e d is tric t c o urt s h o u ld

h av e gr ante d

h is p o st-verdic t 3 motion for judgme nt of ac quittal, his argument is mispl ace d as such a m o tion concer ns the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence , and has nothingto do with the constituti onality of the jury

selec tion proce ss. See Fe d. R. Crim. P . 29(a) , (c) (even afte r j ury has rendere d a verdict, the district court may se t it aside , a

nd “ mus t e nter a

judgme nt o f a c qu itt a l of any of fens e fo r whic h th e e vid e nc e is ins uf fi c ie nt t o s us ta in a con vi ctio n”(e mph a sis a dd e d) ). Thus , in c on sid e ri ngwh e ther t o gra nt a motion for judgme nt of ac quittal, the court considers whether the evidenc e per

taining to the c harg es is sufficient. 8 tr i a l c ouns e l , butgr a nt e d i ti s a s t o the a ppe l l a t e r e pr e s e nt a t i o n D o w n s r e c e i ve d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

o u n d th a t a p p e lla te c o u n s e l h a d b e e n in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to ha ve the ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s , c l os i ng a r gum e nt s a nd j ur y i ns truc t i o n s tr a ns c r i be d. T he di stri ctco urtgave D ow ns l ea ve t o fi l e a n o ut -of- t i m e app ea l , l i m i t ed t o i ss ues a r i si n g from the ope ni ng s t a t e m e nt s , c l os i ng a r gum e nt s a nd j ur y i ns truc t i ons . T he di stri ctcourtal so ordere d t he ori gi nal crim in al j ud gm entvaca t ed, re se nt ence d D ow ns t o th e s a me s e n t e n c e , a n d o r d e r e d th a tth e Cl e r k e n t e ra n e w j udgm e nt i m pos i ng the s a m e t e r m s a s or i gi na l l y i m pos e d. T hi s a ppe a l , f orw hi c h D ow ns
w a s a p p o in te d n e w c o u n s e l, f o llo w e d
. D ow ns c ha l l e nge s the m a ke -u p o f hi s j ur y , a r gui ng tha thi s r i ght s ( 1) t o ha ve hi s j ury r epre se nta f

air cr oss- se ct i on and (2) t o equ al prot ec t i on w er e vi ol at ed be c a us e hi s j ur y pa ne l w a s r a c i a l l y i m ba l a nc e d. A s f orthe f a i rc r os s- s e c t i on 3
a r g u m e n t , a l th o u g h th e Su p r e me Co u r th a s h e l d th a t“ ‘ p e t i tj u r i e s m u s tb e d r a wn f r om a s our c e f

a i r l y r e pr e s e nt a t i ve of

the c om m uni ty , ’ ” the C our tha s “ ‘ i m pos e [ d]
no r e qui r e m e nttha tpe t i tj ur i e s a c tua l l y c hos e n m us tm i r r orthe c om m u n i t y a nd9

re fl ec tthe vari ou s d i st i nct i ve grou ps i n t he po pu l at i on . D ef endant s a re no tent i t l ed t o a j ur y of

a ny pa rt i c ul a rc om pos i t i on. ’ ” H ol l a nd v. I l l i noi s , 493 U
. S
. 474, 483 ( 1990) ( quot i ng T a y l orv. L oui s i a na , 419 U
. S
. 522, 5 3 8 (1 9 7 5) )
. T hus , w e ha ve he l d tha ta de f

e nda ntc l a i m i ng a v i ol a t i on of the f a i rc r os s - s e c t i on r e qui r e m e nt
m u st p ro ve tha t : ( 1) the a l l e ge d unde r r e pr e s e nt e d gr oup i s di s t i nc t i ve ; ( 2) the gr oup is s y s te m a tic a lly e x c lu d e d f r o m th e ju r y s o u r c e ; a n d ( 3 ) th e u n d e r r e p r e s e n ta t i o n is
un fa i r a nd un re as on abl e. B er ry hi l l v. Z ant , 85 8 F
. 2d 63 3, 63 8 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ). A s fo r t h e eq u al p ro t ect i o n cl ai m , u n d er t h e E q u al P ro t ect i o n C la u s e , a de f e nda ntha s s t a ndi ng t o obj e c tt o r a c e - ba s e d e xc l us i ons of j ur or s w he the rornot the de f e n d an t an d t h e e xc l ude d j ur or s s ha r e the s a m e r a c e . P ow e r s v. O hi o, 499 U . S
. 400, 415 ( 1991)
. “ T o e s t a bl i s h a pr i m a f a c i e c l a i m f

or a n e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol a t i on [ i n the pe t i tj ur y s e l e c t i on pr oc e s s ] , a [ de f e nda nt ] m us ts how ( 1) tha the or she i s a m em ber of a group capabl e of bei ng si ng l ed ou tfor di sc ri m i nat ory t r e a t me n t , ( 2 ) th a t me mb e r s o f th i s g r o u p w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y u n d e r r e p r e s e nt e d on the veni re , and (3) t hatthe veni re w as se l ec t ed un der a prac t i ce prov id i ng an o p p o r tu n ity f

o rd is c r im in a tio n .” C u n n in g h a m v . Z a n t, 9 2 8 F .2 d 1 0 0 6 , 1 0 1 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( h a b e a s c o n te x t)
. H e r e , D ow ns di d note s t a bl i sh a vi ol a t i on of e i the rhi s f

a i rc r os s - s e c t i on r i ght or hi s e qu al prot ec t i on ri gh t . W hi l e D ow ns po i nt ed ou tt o t he di stri ctcourtthat10

t h e r e w e r e n o A f

r ic a n - A m e r ic a n s in th e ju r y p o o l, h e f a ile d to s h o w th a t th is excl usi on w as sy st em atic, a nd he offer ed no proo f thatthe un derr epre se nt at i on w as un fa i r o r u n re as on abl e, bu tra ther, si m pl y a sked t he courtt o i m panel a new j ury
w i th A f ri can -A m e r i c a ns on i t . C f
. B e r r y hi l l , 858 F
. 2d a t638 ( de f e nda ntc l a i m i ng f a irc r o s s - s e c tio n v io la tio n m u s t s h o w th a t d is tin c tiv e g r o u p is s y s te m a tic a lly
e xc l ude d f

r om the j ur y s our c e )
. M or e ove r , hi s e qua l pr ot e c t i on c l a i m f a i l s b ecau se a l though he poi nt e d outtha tA f ri c a n- A m e r i c a ns w e r e notr e pr e s e nt e d on the veni re , he m ade no al l egat io n , n ev er m i nd a s ho w i ng , thatthe veni re w as se l ec t ed
un der a prac t i ce prov i di ng an op po rtun i ty f or di sc ri m i nati o n . A nd he re qu es t ed
on l y thatthe courti m pane l a n ew jury , a r equestthe di stri ctcourtprop er l y deni ed beca use D ow ns had n otm ade the re qu i si t e s ho w i ng for hi s r equest ed re m edy. S ee C unni ngha m , 928 F
. 2 d at 1013. A c c or di ngl y , w e di s c e r n no e r r oron e i the rof the g ro u n d s D o w n s assert s co n cern i n g th e j u ry sel ect i o n p ro cess. W e l i kew i se ar e unp er suaded by D ow ns ’s clai m of prosec ut ori al
m i s c onduc t , w hi c h he a s s e r t s f orthe f i r s tt i m e he r e . D ow ns c om pl a i ns of the p ro se cu to r’s u se o f th e p h ra se “yo u ar e h er e b ec au se ” d u rin g th e g o v er n m en t’ s o p e n in g s ta te m e n t. I n s h o r t , w e c a n f in d n o e r r o r , le t a lo n e p la in e r r o r , o n th is b asi s. T h e p h rase “you are h ere to d a y b ecau se” w as si m p l y an i n tro d u ct o ry cl au se thatthe go vern m en t u se d to desc ri be w hatthe t ri al w as abou t-- a drug v i ol at i on --11

a nd w ha tthe e vi de nc e w oul d s how - - the tr a f f i c s t op tha tr e s ul t e d i n the f i ndi ng of
c r a c k
. M o r e o v e r , o u rr e v i e w o f th e o p e n i n g s t a t e me n tr e v e a l s n o c o mme n tb y t he gove r nm e nton D ow ns ’ s gui l tori nnoc e nc e , orphr a s e ol ogy di r e c t ed t o the pa s s i ons orpr e j u d i ces of

the j ur y . C f

. B a i l e y , 893 F
. 3d a t1400 ( gove r nm e ntm a y notm a ke
a r gum e nt s di r ec t e d t o the pa s s i ons orpr e j udi c e s of

the j ur y , butm a y m a ke
c o m m e n ts r e la te d to th e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e la w a n d th e f

a c ts a n d th e e v id e n c e to b e ad d u ced attri al ). In an y ev en t , g i v en th e ab u n d an tev i d en ce o f g u i l t , ev en if u se of the phr a s e “ y ou a r e he r e be c a us e ” w a s s om e how i m pr ope r , D ow ns ha s not
es t abl i shed pl ai n err or t hati s s o o bv i ou s thatthe fail u re to corr ec ti tj eopardi ze d the fa i rnes s a nd i nt egri ty of the t ri al
. C f. B ai l ey , 89 3 F
. 3d at14 00 (a ny al l eged i m prop ercom m en ts by go vernm entm ustbe consi dere d agai nstthe ent i re re cord). I n s hor t , D ow ns ha s notm e thi s bur de n i n de m o n s tr a t i ng r e ve r s i bl e e r r orba s e d on p r o s e c u to r ia l m is c o n d u c t. AF F I RME D.