## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 31 06

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*
Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of No rth Dako ta

. Cl ift on Pat te rs on , *

*
Defen da nt - App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: May 18, 2 01 2
Fi le d: Ju ly 17, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BYE and MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _
MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e.

Cl ift on Pat te rs on was fo un d gu il ty of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e us e an d carr y in g

of a fir earm du rin g a cri m e of vi ol en ce in vi o la ti on of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ), an d

po ss es si on of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ),

92 4( a)(2 ). Pri or to tri al , Pat te rs on ha d al so pl ed gu il ty to b an k ro bb ery in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S.C. § 21 13 (a). On ap pe al , Pat te rs on al le ge s th at pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t

du rin g cl os in g arg um en t req ui res rev ers al of hi s fir earm co nv ic ti on s and a ne w tri al

on th e m eri ts . For th e rea so ns st at ed be lo w, we affi rm

.I.

On Decem

be r 10

, 20 09

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a se ve n- co un t su pe rs ed in g

in di ct m en t ch arg in g Pat te rs on an d co -d efen da nt s W il li am Co ll in s an d Deb ra Je ns en
wit h se ve ral of

fen se s st em

m in g fro m a ba nk ro bb ery th at oc cu rred in Gil by, Nor th

Dak ot a. On May 31

, 20 11

, Pat te rs on en te red an op en gu il ty pl ea to co un t on e of th e

in di ct m en t fo r ba nk ro bb ery. At th at ti m e, he di d no t en te r a pl ea u nd er co un t two

, fo r us e an d carr yi n g o f a f i r e arm du rin g an d in rel at io n to a cri m e of vi ol en ce, or

un de r co un t th ree, fo r po ss es si on of a fir earm by a co nv ic te d fel on

. On Ju ly 28

, 20 11

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed an in fo rm at io n cert ifyin g Pat te rs on ha d b e e n co nv ic te d of si x

pr io r vi ol en t fel o n ie s. The go ve rn m en t in di cat ed it s in te nt to se ek an en ha nc ed

se nt en ce o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t fo r co un t t wo u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 59 (c)( 1)

.

Pat te rs on 's tri al on th e fir earm ch arg es to ok pl ace ov er th ree da y s i n A u g u s t

20 11

. Vid eo su rv ei ll an ce fro m th e da y of th e ro bb ery, as well as th e te st im on y of th e
ba nk te ll er pr es en t on th at da y , es ta bl is he d th at P at te rs on ha d carr ie d in to th e ba nk

an d po in te d at th e te ll er wha t ap pe ared to be a ha nd gu n. Howev er, it was ul ti m at el y
de te rm in ed th at Pat te rs on ha d be en carr y in g a BB gu n pi st ol

, whi ch do es no t qu al ify

a s a fir earm un de r fed eral la w. Co ll in s, on th e ot he r ha nd

, br ou gh t in to t h e b a n k a

sa wed -o ff sh ot gu n, whi c h do es qu al ify as a fir earm , an d st oo d wit h it in th e ba nk

whi le Pat te rs on fil le d b ag s wi th m on ey

.

Co ll in s te st ifi ed th at Pat te rs on ha d or ig in al ly su gg es te d ob ta in in g a sh ot gu n, 1

ha d s awed off

th e b arre l, an d h ad pl an ne d to us e it du rin g th e ro bb ery. On t he way

to th e ro bb ery, Co ll in s an d P at te rs on bo th dr ov e se pa rat e st ol en ve hi cl es pa rt of th e

way be fo re d riv in g t og et he r to th e b an k. Co ll in s s ai d t ha t b ot h t he sh ot gu n a nd th e

BB gu n were in th e ve hi cl e dr iv en by Pat te rs on

. It was n't un ti l th e la st m in ut e ou ts id e

Bec au se bo th Pat te rs on an d Co ll in s were pr io r fel on s, Je ns en was th e on e who 1

act ua ll y pu rch as ed th e g un

.

-2

-th e ba nk

, acco rd in g to Co ll in s, th at Pat te rs on de ci de d Co ll in s sh ou ld ta ke th e sh ot gu n

whi le Pat te rs on wou ld pu t th e m on ey in th e ba g. The two m en le ft th e ba nk to ge th er

an d, aft er swi tc hi ng cars on ce ag ai n, ret ur ne d to Co ll in s's ap art m en t. Co ll in s te st ifi ed

th at

, so m et im e aft er th e ro bb ery, Je ns en an d Pat te rs on di sp os ed of th e sh ot gu n, whi ch

was ne ve r reco ve red

. Pat te rs on di d no t tes ti fy at tri al

, an d m uc h o f hi s defe ns e was
de di cat ed to un de rm in in g t he cred ib il it y of C ol li ns 's t es ti m on y

.

Dur in g cl os in g arg um en t, t h e pr os ecu to r m ad e two arg um en ts th at Pat te rs on

co nt en ds were im

pr op er. The fir st co m

m en t oc cu rred whi le th e pr os ecu to r was
ad dr es si ng th e ev id en ce th at Pat te rs on ha d ai de d an d ab et te d th e us e of th e sh ot gu n.
The pr os ecu to r to l d t h e ju ry th at Pat te rs on an d Co ll in s bo th "wal k[ ed ] in th e
ba nk —re al ly, la di es an d ge nt le m en , th ey bo th walk [ed ] in to th e ba nk an d is th ere an y

po s s i b l e c on cep ti on th at Mr. Pat te rs on di dn 't ai d an d ab et th e us e of [th e sh ot gu n],

di dn 't k no w what was g oi ng to ha pp en ? The re's no ev id en ce of t ha t. The ev id en ce
is th e ex act op po si te ."

Defen se co un se l im m ed ia te ly ob jecte d an d su gg es te d th at th e go ve rn m en t was

im pr op erl y "as ki ng if th ere is ev id en ce th at Mr. Pat te rs on is in no cen t. And of co ur se

Mr. Pat te rs on ha s no bu rd en to pr ov e hi s in no cen ce, an d I th in k th is li ne of arg um en t

is sh ift in g th e bu rd en of pr oo f in an im pr op er di rect i o n

. " W it h th e jury st il l in th e

co ur tro om , th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d de fen se co un se l's co nc ern bu t ov erru le d 2

it s o bjec ti on , st at in g:

Y o u r s ta te m en t on th e la w is co rrec t. The de fen da nt is un de r n o ob li ga ti on to pr ov e an y th in g an d th e jury's be en in st ru ct ed on th at

. Anytim e y ou arg ue ab ou t th e ab se nc e of ev id en ce y ou can fal l in to th at

tra p. Howev er, if y o u f

ol lo w th e Co ur t's in st ru ct io ns m ere ab se nc e of

ev id en ce is a fact th at can est ab li sh a fact un de r cert ai n circ um st an ces

.

The Hon or ab le Ral ph R. Eric ks on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2

of Nort h Dak ot a.

-3

-I do n't th in k th at [th e pr os ecu to r's ] arg um en t ha s cro ss ed th e li ne

. I

wou ld jus t as k [th e pr os ecu to r] to be care fu l a s [ i t] se ts fo rth th e
arg um en t, an d I'l l in st ru ct th e jury jus t to rem em be r th at th e bu rd en do es

no t ev er s hi ft t o t he de fen da nt to pro ve hi s i nn oc en ce.

The se co nd co m

m en t oc cu rred du rin g pa rt of th e go ve rn m en t' s r e b ut ta l. The

de fen se ha d us ed m

uc h of it s own cl os in g arg um en t to at ta ck Co ll in s's cred ib il it y an d

c a st do ub t on Pat te rs on 's pu rp or te d po ss es si on of th e sh ot gu n be fo re an d af t e r t h e

ro bb ery. The go ve rn m en t's reb ut t a l t h e r efo re fo cu se d in pa rt on de fen se co un se l's

cred ib il it y at ta ck s. At o n e p o in t, th e pr os ecu to r refe ren ced a de fen se arg um en t th at

q u e s t i on ed whe th er an y ev id en ce ot he r th an Co ll in s's te st im on y sh owe d th a t

Pat te rs on was in a ca r wit h th e sh ot gu n. The pr os ecu to r su gg es te d to th e jury th at

de fen se co un se l was "[t ]ry in g to co nf us e y ou ab ou t th e si m

pl e is su e ab ou t th es e two

in di vi du al s en te rin g th e ba nk , u si ng a sh ot gu n to ro b th e ba nk an d th e st or e an d al l

he 's do in g is t r yi n g to co nf us e y ou ." The pr os ecu to r wen t on to ad dr es s va rio us

arg um en ts th at th e de fen se ha d us ed to un de rm in e Co ll in s's cred ib il it y an d co nt in ue d

to as se rt th ey were no t rel ev an t to th e cas e. The pr os ecu to r co nc lu de d by te ll in g th e jury, "t he fact s he re are si m pl e.

. . . The y bo th ha ve th e sa me i n t e n t

. Th e y bo th

as si st ed in th e sa m e act s, an d o ne of t ho se act s was us in g t hi s s ho tg un ."

On Aug u s t 11

, 20 11

, a jury acq ui tt ed Pat te rs on of us in g or carr y in g of th e

fir earm , b ut it fo un d hi m gu il ty u n d e r c o u n t two of ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e us e an d

carr y in g of th e sh ot gu n. The jury al so fo un d Pat te rs on gu il ty un de r co un t th ree. He

was se nt en ced to th e st at u t o r y m ax im um 24 0- m on th se nt en ce un de r co un t on e an d

a co nc ur ren t 26 2- m on th se nt en ce un de r co un t th ree. Pu rs ua nt to th e m an da to ry

pe na lt y in § 35 59 (c)( 1 )

, P a t te rs on was se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t un de r co un t

two

.

-4

-II.

"A tri al co ur t is ve st ed wit h br oa d di sc ret io n in co nt ro ll in g cl os in g arg um en ts

an d we wil l rev ers e on ly on a sh owi ng of ab us e of di sc ret io n." Uni te d St at es v.

Co ut en to s, 65 1 F.3 d 80 9, 82 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om i t t ed ).

W he re a p r o se cu to r m ak es im pr op er co m

m en ts du rin g cl os in g arg um en ts

, "we

co ns id er th e cu m

ul at iv e effe ct of th e im

pr op rie ti es , th e st ren gt h of t h e ev id en ce

ag ai ns t th e de fen da nt

, an d whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t to ok an y cu rat iv e act io n." Uni te d

St at es v. Swif

t, 62 3 F.3 d 61 8, 62 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

"'It is well es ta bl is he d th at th e Fi fth Am en dm en t fo rb id s ei th er co m m en t by th e

pr os ecu ti on on th e acc us ed 's s il en ce o r in st ru ct io ns by th e co ur t th at su ch si le nc e is

ev id en ce of gu il t.'" Uni te d St at es v. San ds tro m , 59 4 F.3 d 63 4, 66 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng Uni t e d S t a t e s v. Gard ne r, 39 6 F.3 d 98 7, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). Im pr op er

co m m en t on a de fen da nt 's de ci s i o n n ot to te st ify can be in di rect

. "When th e

pr os ecu to r ha s ne it he r di rect ly co m m en te d on th e de fen da nt 's si le nc e, no r
de m on st rat ed an in te nt to dr aw at te nt io n to th at si le nc e, th e is su e is whe th er th e jury

wou ld na tu ra ll

y a n d ne ces sa ri ly un de rs ta nd th e co m m en ts as hi gh li gh ti ng th e
de fen da nt 's fai lu re t o t e s t i f y ." Gard ne r, 39 6 F.3 d at 98 9 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Fu rth erm or e, th e go ve rn m en t "m ay no t im pr op erl y s u g g es t th at th e
de fen da nt h a s t h e b u r de n to pr od uc e ev id en ce." Uni te d St at es v. Bu rn s, 43 2 F.3 d

85 6, 8 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Pat te rs on arg ue s th at th e pr os ecu to r's co m m en ts im pr op erl y dr ew at te nt io n to

th e la ck of ev id en ce sh owi ng Pat te rs on 's in no cen t st at e of m in d, whi c h c o u l d on ly

ha ve be en in tro du ced by hi s own te st im on y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Trip le tt

, 19 5 F.3 d

99 0, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (rev ers in g a co nv ic ti on be cau se pr os e c u t o r i m pr op erl y

c o mm e n t ed on th e ab se nc e of ev id en ce whe re th e de fen da nt al on e po ss es se d th e

in fo rm at io n ne c e s s ary to co nt rad ic t th e go ve rn m en t's cas e). Ass um in g th at th is

-5

-co m

m en t was im

pr op er, ho wev er, we do no t be li ev e th at it co ul d r e a s on ab ly ha ve

affe ct ed th e jury's ve rd ic t.

Any pr ejud ic e cau se d by th e pr os ecu to r's is ol at e d c om m en t was su ffi ci en tl y

cu red by th e di st ric t co ur t's im m ed ia te st at em en t to th e jury an d it s fin a l ju ry

in st ru ct io ns

. See Uni te d St at es v. C h as e, 45 1 F.3 d 47 4, 48 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )
(as su m in g pr os ecu to r's is o l a t e d co m m en ts were im

pr op er, no pr ejud ic e oc cu rred

whe n th e co ur t ga ve an im m ed ia te cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n)

. Fo ll owi ng de fen se co un se l's

ob jecti on to th e co m

m en t, th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve an im m ed ia te cu rat iv e in st ru ct io n

in op en co ur t, sta ti ng th at th e d efen da nt ne ve r ha d a bu rd en to pr ov e hi s in no cen ce.

In th e fin al jury in st ru ct io ns , th e co ur t twi ce st at ed th at th e de fen da nt di d no t ha ve a
bu rd en to pr ov e hi s in no cen ce. The co ur t al so ex pl ai ne d th at th e jury co ul d no t ev en

co ns id er Pat te rs on 's fai lu re to te st ify in it s de li be rat io n. Mo reo ve r, un li ke a cas e su ch

as Ch as e, whe re the co m

pl ai ne d- of co m

m en ts cam e du rin g reb ut ta l ar gu m en t wh en

th e de fen se ha d no op po rtu ni ty to res po nd to th em , Pat te rs o n ' s c o u n se l ha d a fu ll

op po rtu ni ty to ad dr es s t he bu rd en of p ro of du rin g h is own clo si ng st at em en t.

Pat te rs on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t's cu rat iv e act io ns w e r e in su ffi ci en t

be cau se it s st at em en t i n op en co ur t th at th e "ab se nc e of ev id en ce is a fact th at can

es ta bl is h a fact un de r cert ai n ci rcu m st an ces " was co nf us in g, an d th eref

or e m ay ha ve
le d th e jury to im

pr op erl y be li ev e th at Pat te rs on ha d a du ty to in tro du ce ex cu lp at or y

ev id en ce. W e di sa gr ee. In ad di ti on to it s th ree se pa rat e st at em en ts th at Pat te rs on di d

no t ha ve a bu rd en to pr ov e hi s in no cen ce, th e di st ric t co ur t al so in cl ud ed in th e fin al
jury in st ru ct io ns a st at em en t th at "[t ]he pr es um pt io n of in no cen ce al on e is su ffi ci en t

to fin d th e de fen da nt no t gu il ty an d can be ov erco m e on ly if th e Gov ern m en t pr ov es , be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, each el em en t of th e cri m e ch arg ed ." Ju ro rs are pr es um ed

to fo ll ow th e co ur t's in st ru ct io ns

. Uni te d St at es v. Sm it h, 50 8 F.3 d 86 1, 86 6 (8 th Ci r.

20 07 ). We be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t's in st ru ct io ns were su ffi ci en t to cu re th e

pr os ecu to r's is ol at ed im

pr op er co m

m en t an d t o p rev en t an y

pre jud ic e to Pat te rs on

.

-6

-III.

Pat te rs on ne xt arg u e s t h a t du rin g it s reb ut ta l arg um en t, th e go ve rn m en t

im pr op erl y at ta ck ed t h e in te gr it y of de fen se co un se l. Acco rd in g to Pat te rs on , th e

pr os ecu to r's st at em en t to t h e ju ry th at de fen se co un se l was "t ry in g to co nf us e" it

ab ou t a "s im

pl e is su e" im

pr op erl y dr ew at te nt io n to de fen se c ou ns el 's co nd uc t an d

th eref or e req ui res rev ers al

. Pat te rs on di d no t mak e a co nt em po ran eo us ob

jecti on
du rin g tri al

, so we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v. Je well

, 61 4 F.3 d 91 1, 92 7
(8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, r e l i ef is av ai la bl e on ly if th e de fen da nt

sh ows : "(1 ) an erro r; (2 ) th at is pl ai n; an d (3 ) th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s." Uni te d

St at es v. Lom el i, 5 9 6 F .3d 49 6, 50 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

.

Ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hol m es , 41 3 F.3 d 77 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ), Pat te rs on arg ue s

th at th is co ur t ha s pr ev io us ly rev ers ed a co nv ic ti on whe re a pr os ecu to r im pr op erl y

to ld th e jury th at de fen se co un se l, in effe ct

, was tryin g to co nf us e th e jury. Pat te rs on 's

arg um en t s tre tc he s o ur

ho ld in g i n Ho lm es be y on d re co gn it io n. Pa tt ers on is co rrec t

th at th e pr os ecu t o r i n H o lm es m ad e co m m en ts ab ou t th e de fen se co un se l us in g

"s m ok e an d m irr or s" an d want in g t o " di st ract " t he jury. Id

. at 77 5. Howev er, the se

co m m en ts were pa rt of a se rie s of st at em en ts di rect ed pe r s o na ll y at th e de fen se

co un se l, whi ch cu lm in at ed in m ul ti pl e co m

m en ts th at "h e" an d "t he y " ( p r e s u m ab ly

refe rri ng to de fen se co un se l an d th e de fen da nt ) ne ed ed to "g et th ei r st or ie s st rai gh t."

Id

. W e in te rp ret ed th es e co m m en ts as an accu sa t i o n th at de fen se co un se l was

"co ns pi rin g wit h th e de fen da n t t o fab ric at e te st im on y ," an d co nc lu de d th at th ey

"en co ur ag e[d ] th e jury to fo cu s on th e co nd uc t an d ro le of [th e de fen da nt 's] at to rn ey

rat he r th an on th e ev id en ce o f [t he de fen da nt 's] gu il t." Id.

Th e c o mm e n t s m ad e by t he pr os ecu to r in th is cas e do no t ris e to th e le ve l o f

th os e in Hol m es

. Rat he r t h a n d i sp arag in g de fen se co un se l by de sc rib in g hi s

arg um en ts as "t ry in g to co nf us e" th e jury, th e fu ll co nt ex t of th e pr os ecu to r's reb ut ta l

-7

-s h o w s t h at he was at te m pt in g to di st in gu is h th e de fen se 's at ta ck on Co ll in s's

cred ib il it y fro m th e un co nt ro ve rte d fact s of th e cas e. The pr os ecu to r m ad e refe ren ce

to m ul ti pl e cred ib il it y at ta ck s m ad e by th e de fen se co un se l, an d each ti m e t r i e d to

po rtr ay th em as irr el ev an t to th e fact of th e us e of th e sh ot gu n du rin g th e ro bb ery. "It

is no t im pr op er fo r th e go ve rn m en t to co m m en t on it s in te rp ret at io n of th e ev id en ce."

Je well

, 61 4 F.3 d at 92 8 (fi nd in g n o p l a i n e r ro r in a pr os ecu to r's st at em en t th at a

"s m ok e an d m irr or s" de fen se was m is le ad ing th e jury be cau se th e "co m m en ts refe rred

to th e pr os ecu to r's vi ew of th e st ren gt h of th e th eo ry of de fen se , an d di d no t su gg es t

fab ric at io n o f te st im on y "). We fin d n o p la in erro r in th e p ro se cu to r's co m m en ts

.

IV.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d eci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-