# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 31 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lam arv in Dard en

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 2

Fil ed : Au gu st 7, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Fo ll owi ng a jury tr ia l L am ar vin D ar de n was co nv ic te d of po ss es si ng wit h in te nt

to di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se , be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a f ire arm , an d be in g an

un la wfu l us er of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. The di st ric t co ur t 1

Th e Hon or ab le E. Ri ch ard W eb be r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.se nt en ced hi m to 20 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on , arg ui ng th at

th e in di ct m en t sh ou ld ha ve be en di sm is se d be cau se th e go v ern m en t en ga ge d in

m is co nd uc t du rin g gr an d jury pr oc eed in gs , th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ad m it ti ng

irr el ev an t an d u nf

ai rly pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce, an d t ha t t he pro se cu to r m ad e im pr op er

co m m en ts du rin g cl os in g arg um en t th at de pr iv ed hi m of hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al

. W e

affi rm

. I.

In Octo be r 20 10 th e St

. Lou is Met ro po li ta n Po li ce Dep art men t rece iv ed

in fo rm at io n fro m a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI) in di cat in g th a t D a rd en , a co nv ic te d

fel on , was di st rib ut in g il le ga l d r u g s ou t of hi s gr an dp aren ts ' ho us e. Po li ce be ga n

su rv ei ll an ce of D ard en an d ob se rv ed hi m in what ap pe ared to be ha nd to ha nd dr ug

tra ns act io ns at th ei r res id en ce an d sa w hi m ho ld in g hi s wais t in a m an ne r co ns is te nt

wit h co nc eal in g a fir earm

. Bas ed on in fo rm at io n fro m t h e C I a nd th ei r own

ob se rv at io ns , th e p ol ic e o bt ai ne d a sea rch warran t fo r th e g ran dp aren ts ' res id en ce.

As t he y were pr ep ari ng to ex ecu te th e se arch warran t, t he po li ce s aw Dard en

an d th e CI arri ve at th e res id en ce in a Je ep , en te r th e ho us e, an d le av e a few m in ut es

la te r, he ad ed ba ck to th e Je ep

. Po li ce app ro ach ed th e Je ep an d saw Darden th ro w a

bo tt le of NyQuil th ro ug h t he op en win do w. They arre st ed bo th Dard en an d t he CI,

te ll in g t he m

th ey ha d a sea rch warran t fo r th e h om e.

W hi le ex ecu ti ng th e se arch warra nt

, Dete ct iv e Ant ho ny Bo et ti gh ei m er sp ok e

wit h Fred di e an d Bi rd ie Hou st on , Dard en 's gr an dp aren ts

. The de te ct iv e te st ifi ed th at

Mrs

. Hou st on to ld hi m th at sh e ha d be en se win g in he r be dr oo m whe n Dard en arri ve d

at th e ho us e. Sh e ex pl ai ne d th at he ha d co m e in to he r be dr oo m , rem ov ed a ba ll is ti c

ve st f r o m un de r hi s t sh irt an d pl aced it on th e be d, an d th en st uf fed an un kn own

ob ject un de r th e m at tre ss

. The de te ct iv e as ke d Mr. Hou st on if he ha d an y gu ns in th e

ho us e. He rep li ed t h a t h e d i d ke ep gu ns in hi s be dr oo m , whi ch was se pa rat e fro m

Mrs . Hou st on 's, an d t ha t h e o wne d a 9m m ha nd gu n.

-2

-Dete ct iv e Bo et ti gh ei m er th en se arch ed Mrs

. Hou st on 's be dr oo m whe re he sa w

a bu ll et pr oo f ve st lying on th e be d an d fo un d a 9m m ha nd gu n un de r th e m at tre ss

. Bo th were se iz ed

. Acco rd in g to t r i a l te st im on y fro m an ot he r of fic er, Mr. Hou st on

id en ti fie d th e 9m m h a n d g u n a s h i s own , sa id th at he ha dn 't se en it fo r ab ou t th ree

week s, an d st at ed th at he co ul d no t be li ev e th at Dard en ha d st ol en it

. Afte r th e se arch

was co m pl et ed

, Dete ct iv e Bo et ti gh ei m er le ft th e ho us e, wen t ov er to th e sq ua d car

whe re Dard en ha d be en de ta in ed

, an d to ld hi m ab ou t th e ev id en ce he ha d di sc ov ered

. Bo et ti gh ei m er te st ifi ed th at Dard en res po nd ed th at he ha d th e gu n fo r hi s pr ot ect io n

an d t ha t ju st be fo re t he po li ce ar riv ed he ha d pl aced th e bu ll et pr oo f ve st on th e b ed

an d t he gu n u nd ern eat h t he m at tre ss

.

One week fo ll owi ng Dard en 's arre st

, a fed eral gr an d jury co nv en ed to co ns id er

hi s cas e. The Hou st on s ha d be en su bp oe na ed to te st ify an d th e go ve rn m en t al so pl an ne d to pr es en t th e te st im on y of Dete ct iv e Jo se ph St ei ge r, a po li ce of fic er who ha d

b e en pr es en t whe n th e se arch warra nt was ex ecu te d. On th e m or ni ng of t h e g r a n d
jury he ari ng , th e pr os ecu to r an d Dete ct iv e St ei ge r m et wit h th e Hou st on s ou ts id e th e

gr an d jury ro om

. Mrs

. Hou st o n sa id th at sh e di d no t rem em be r se ei ng th e ba ll is ti c

ve st on he r be d or se ei ng Dard en pl ace an y th in g un de r th e mat tre ss

. Mr. Hou st on

ex pl ai ne d th at th e 9m m ha nd gu n was in a dr awer in hi s be dr oo m at th e ti m e th e

warra nt was e xe cu te d, an d t hu s t he po li ce m us t h av e ta ke n i t fr om

th ere r at he r th an

fin di ng it un de r th e m at tre ss in hi s wi fe's be dr oo m

.

Dete ct iv e St ei ge r was th e on ly wit ne ss cal le d at th e gr an d jury pr oc eed in g. He

te st ifi ed as a su m

m ary wit ne ss ab ou t th e Hou st on s' st at em en ts at th e ti m e of Dard en 's

arre st

. He th en rel at ed th e po si ti on s th e co up le ha d ta ke n on th e m or ni ng of th e gr an d
jury pr oc eed in g, sa y in g th at th e Hou st on s ha d bo th "k in d of ch an ge d th ei r st at em en ts "

aft er t he da y of th e se arch . He tes ti fie d t ha t af te r he ari ng th ei r ch an ge d s ta te m en ts

, he an d t h e p r o s e cu to r ha d de ci de d no t to cal l th em as wit ne ss es

. Mem be rs of th e

gr an d jury as ke d se ve ral qu es ti on s ab ou t th e Hou st on s' ch an ge d po si ti on s whi ch

-3

-Dete ct iv e St ei ge r an d th e pr os ecu to r an swe red

. The gr an d jury ret ur ne d an

in di ct m en t ch arg in g Dar de n wi th un la wfu l p os se ss io n o f a fi rear m

.

Dard en fil ed m ot io ns to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed from the H oust ons' house an d

st a t e men ts he ha d m ad e fo ll owi ng hi s arre st

. He al so fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s th e

in di ct m en t ba se d on th e go ve rn m en t's fai lu re to cal l th e Hou st on s to te st ify be fo re th e

gr an d jury an d al le ge d im pr op er co m

m en ta ry fro m th e pr os ecu to r du rin g th e he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io ns

.

A fiv e co un t su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t was su bs eq ue n t l y r et ur ne d ch arg in g

Dard en wit h po ss es si ng wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se , 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ),
(b )(1 )(C)

, po ss es si ng wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e hydro co do ne , id

., be in g a f e l o n i n

po ss es si on of a 9m m se m ia ut om at ic pi st ol

, 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), (e)( 1)

,
po ss es si ng a 9m m se m ia ut om at ic pi st ol whi le be in g an un la wfu l us er of or ad di ct ed

to a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e, id

. §§ 92 2( g) (3 ), 92 4( a)(2 ), (e)( 1)

, an d be in g a vi ol en t fel on

in po ss es si on of b od y

arm or , id . §§ 93 1( a), 9 24 (a)( 7)

.

Dard en 's cas e pr oc eed ed to a fo ur da y jury tri al du rin g whi ch th e go ve rn m en t

cal le d se ve n po li ce o ffi cers , th ree c riminal is ts , a dr ug di st rib ut io n e xp ert , a Fed eral

Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 4( b) wit ne ss , an d th e CI in it s cas e in ch ie f. Dard en pr es en te d 2

te st im on y by the Hou st on s an d h is own dru g d is tri bu ti on ex pe rt.

Dete ct iv e Bo et ti gh ei m er te st ifi ed reg ard in g in fo rm at io n rece iv ed fro m th e CI,

hi s co rro bo rat io n of th at in fo rm at io n th ro ug h su rv ei ll an ce, th e ev id en ce se iz ed whi le

ex ecu ti ng th e se arch warra nt

, hi s co nv ers at io ns wit h th e Hou st on s at th e ti m e of th e

A ne w ve rs io n of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Evi de nc e wen t in to effe ct on Decem be r 2
1, 20 11 as p art of th e Fed eral Ru le s St y le Pro ject. Ch an ge s m ad e as pa rt of th is

pr ojec t are "i nt en de d to be st y li st ic on ly." See Fed

. R. Ev i d. 10 1 ad vi so ry

co m m it te e's no te

. All qu ot at io ns he re are fro m th e ru le s in effe ct du rin g Dard en 's May 201 1 t ria l.

-4

-se arch

, an d Dard en 's co m m en ts in th e sq ua d car whe n a s k e d a b o ut th e se iz ed

ev id en ce. On cro ss ex am in at io n de fen se co un se l qu es ti on ed th e de te ct iv e ab ou t th e

fact s th at th e CI ha d in di cat ed th at Dard en ha d bo th a 9m m an d a .45 cal ib er fir earm

bu t th e po li ce ha d ne ve r fo un d a .45 cal ib er fir earm

. Dur in g red ire ct th e go ve rn m en t
pl ay ed a ph on e cal l reco rd ed be twee n Dard en an d an un id en ti fie d m an whi le he was

in jail fo ll owi ng hi s arre st

. In th e reco rd in g Dard en sa id "I was tryin g to cal l y ou bu t

y ou kn ow wha t I ' m s a yin ' ha ve m y gi rlf rie nd gi ve y ou uh

, th at ni ck el fo r m e

. . . . [L]et y ou ho ld on to it

, it pl ay s xb ox y ou he ar m e?

. . . I ha d a ni ck el ov er the re m an , I wis h you co ul d h ol d o nt o i t m an ."

Bo et ti gh ei m er te st ifi ed th at a .45 cal ib er gu n is so m et i mes refe rred to as a

"n ic ke l" an d th at th e xb ox vi de o ga m e syste m can be us ed to co nc eal gu n s

. Th e

go ve rn m en t th en in tro du ced in to ev id en ce a ph ot og ra p h f r o m th e Hou st on s' ho m e

ap pa ren tl y de pi ct in g a red xb ox an d al so at te m pt ed to in tro du ce an in te rn et pr in to ut

of a red xb ox fo r co m

pa ris on pu rp os es

. The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d an ob jecti on by

de fense co uns el to in tro du ct io n of th e pr in to ut as un du ly pr ejud ic ia l. The go ve rn m en t

th en cal le d an ot he r po li ce of fic er an d in tro du ced th e pr in to ut th ro ug h hi m

. Defen se

co un se l m ad e n o o bjec ti on to th is in tro du ct io n o f th e p rin to ut

.

The jury th en he ard te st im on y fro m a po li ce of fic er who ha d ov erh eard Dard en

m ak e a ph on e cal l aft er he was bo ok ed in whi ch he as ke d a fri en d to try to ge t hi s

gr an df at he r to cl ai m po ss es si on of th e gu n ta ke n in to ev id en ce, ex pl ai ni ng he co ul d

no t affo rd to be ch arg ed wit h a gu n cri m e du e to hi s cri m in al reco rd

. The go ve rn m en t

al so pr es en te d Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce fro m a St

. Lou is po li ce of fic er reg ard in g a

pr ev io us in st an ce in whi ch Dard en ha d hi dd e n a g u n un de r a m at tre ss

. Test im on y

fro m th e CI in di cat ed th at he ha d se en Dard en wit h 9m m an d .45 cal ib er gu ns , as well

as a bu ll et pr oo f ve st

. He al so sa id th at jus t be fo re Dard en ' s arre st th e two m en ha d

en te red th e Hou st on s' ho m e whe re Dard en dr op pe d of f a gu n an d a ba ll is ti c ve st

. The
jury al so he ard tes ti m on y fro m two off ic ers in vo lv ed in an Aug us t 2 01 0 i nc id en t i n

-5

-whi ch Dard en co ns en te d to a se arch whi ch rev eal ed hi m to be carr y in g co cai ne ba se

an d h y dr oc od on e p il ls an d fo rm ed th e b as is of c ha rg es in vo lv in g t ho se dru gs

.

Th e ju ry fo un d Dard en gu il ty of po ss es si ng wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai n e

ba se , be in g a fel on i n po ss es si on of a fir earm , an d be in g an un la wfu l us er of a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. It acq ui tt ed hi m of po ss es si ng wit h

in te nt to di st rib ut e hydro co do ne an d be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of bo dy arm or

. The

di st ric t co ur t s en te nc ed hi m to 20 0 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

Dard en ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be rev ers ed be cau se th e

go ve rn m en t co m

m it te d m is co nd uc t du rin g gr an d jury pr oc eed in gs , th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d by ad m it ti ng te st im on y reg ard in g th e xb ox vi de o ga m e co ns ol e an d .45 cal ib er pi st ol be cau se it was no t rel ev an t an d un fai rly pr ejud ic ia l, an d th e go ve rn m en t's

cl os in g arg um en t co nt ai ne d im pr op er rem ark s th at su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ejud ic ed hi s rig ht

to a fai r tr ia l.

II.

W e fir st ad dr es s Dard en 's co nt en ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by de nyin g hi s

m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t be cau se of m is co nd uc t b y t h e g o ve rn m en t du rin g

gr an d jury pr oc eed in gs

. Our rev ie w of a di st ric t co ur t's de ni al of a m ot io n to di sm is s

th e in di ct m en t i s fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it ed Sta te s v . W ad li ng to n, 2 33 F.3d

10 67

, 10 74 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ). W he r e a de fen da nt al le ge s pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t,

di sm is sa l of th e in di ct m en t "i s pr op er on ly whe n th e de fen da nt de m on st rat es fla gr an t

m is co nd uc t an d s ub st an ti al pre jud ic e." Id . at 1 07 3.

Dard en arg ue s th at th e go ve rn men t a c te d im pr op erl y by no t cal li ng th e

Hou st on s to te st ify in fro nt of th e gr an d jury, th us ke ep in g ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce fro m

th e gr an d jury

. The go ve rn m en t is no t ob li ga te d to pr es en t excu lp at or y ev id en ce i n

gr an d jury pr oc eed in gs , ho wev er, si nc e "t he gr an d jury si ts no t to de te rm in e gu il t or

-6

-in no cen ce, bu t to as se ss whe th e r t h e r e is ad eq ua te ba si s fo r br in gi ng a cri m in al

ch arg e," an un de rta ki ng fo r whi ch it "h as al way s be en th ou gh t su ffi ci en t to he ar on ly

th e p ro se cu to r's si de ." See Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 5 04 U.S. 36 , 51 (19 92 ).

W hi le th e go ve rn m en t ha d no ob li ga ti on to pr es en t th e Hou st on s' te st imon y , th e gr an d ju ry

was t ol d t ha t t he Hou st on s di sp ut ed th e co m m en ts at tri bu te d to th em

at th e ti m e o f th e se arch . Darde n t ak es is su e wit h on e of th e pr os ecu to r's qu es ti on s

whi ch as ke d Dete ct iv e St ei ge r whe th er Mrs

. H o us to n ha d "re can te d" he r earl ie r

st at em en ts

. Dard en cl ai m s sh e di d no t "re can t" he r st at em en ts si nc e sh e de ni ed ev er

ha vi ng m ad e th em

. W e ag ree wit h th e di st r i c t co ur t's ch arac te riz at io n of th is

arg um en t as on e o f " s e man ti cs " be cau se th e gr an d jury was m ad e aware th at th e

Hou st on s co nt es te d t he po li ce v ers io n o f wha t h ad be en sai d.

Dard e n ne xt arg ue s th at th e pr os ecu to r act ed im pr op erl y by im

pu gn in g th e

cred ib il it y of th e Hou st on s t h r o u gh a su gg es ti on th at he ha d th reat en ed hi s

gr an dp aren ts

. He se iz es on th e fo ll owi ng ex ch an ge w h i c h o ccu rred aft er th e

pr os ecu to r as ke d wh et he r th e g ran d ju ro rs ha d a ny qu es ti on s.

G. Ju ro r: Did y ou gu y s qu es ti on th e gr an d p a r e n t s as to whe th er th ei r

gr an ds on ha d th reat en ed th em , or if an y of hi s fri en ds ha d th reat en ed

t h e m, o r if an y ha rm was go in g to co m e to th em if th ey di dn 't ch an g e th ei r st or y ?

St ei ge r: To da y , y ou m ean ?

G. Ju ro r: Uh -h uh

.

St ei ge r: No, we di dn 't ta lk ab ou t th reat s at al l wit h [th e Hou st on s]. I
th in k th ey were m or e co nc ern ed wit h

- - if th ey do n't co m e in he re, th en th ey pro ba bl y do n't ha ve an y th in g t o wo rry ab ou t b ecau se th ey

are n ot

-7

-go in g to ha ve an y pa rt of b e i n g t e s t i m on y ag ai ns t hi m

. Bu t we can

ad dr es s t ha t af

te rward s wi th th em , to o, m a'am

. 3

G. Ju ro r: I th in k th at 's im

po rta nt to kn ow, be cau se el de rly fo lk s are ve ry in ti m id at ed an d s om et im es rul ed by the ir f am il y m em be rs . That 's . . .

Pro se cu to r: Abs ol ut el y

. You kn ow, th at 's on e of th e reas on s - - well

, I
do n't want to say anythi ng be fo re y ou vo te

.

Rat he r th an su pp or ti ng Dard en 's arg um en t, th is ex ch an ge m ak es cl ear th at an y

su gg es ti on th at th e Hou st on s ha d be en in ti m id at ed by Dard en in it ia te d wit h th e gr an d
juro rs th em se lv es , no t wit h th e go ve rn m en t. The pr os ecu to r act ed pr op e r l y by

refr ai ni ng f

r o m di sc us si ng in ti m id at io n wit h res pe ct to th e Hou st on s pr io r to th e

gr an d jury's vo te

. Not hi ng in th is reco rd es ta bl is he s th e "fl ag ran t m is co nd uc t" by th e

pr os ecu to r or "s ub st an ti al pr e ju d i c e" to th e de fen da nt req ui red fo r di sm is sa l of an

in di ct m en t. See W ad li ng to n, 2 33 F.3d at 1 07 3.

W e ne xt tu rn to Dard en 's arg um en t th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ad mi t t i ng

ev id en ce reg ard in g a .45 cal ib er gu n an d an xb ox

. A t tri al Dard en 's on ly o bjec ti on

t o t h i s ev id en ce was to th e in tro du ct io n th ro ug h Dete ct iv e Bo et ti gh ei m er of a n

in te rn et pr in to ut de pi ct in g an xb ox

. Thi s pi ct ur e was la te r ad m it te d th ro ug h an ot he r

wit ne ss wit ho ut ob

jecti on

. Our rev ie w i s t hu s fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v.

W hi te Bu ll

, 64 6 F.3d 10 82

, 10 91 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). To warran t rev ers al Dard en m us t

sh ow th at "(1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d an erro r, (2 ) th e erro r is cl ear or ob vi ou s,

an d (3 ) th e erro r affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l r i g h t s

. " Id

. Eve n if th e de fen da nt m eet s

th es e th ree req ui rem en ts of pl ai n erro r, we w i l l o n ly rev ers e if th e erro r "s eri ou sl y

affe ct [s ] th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Pu ck et t

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 6 U.S. 12 9, 13 5 (2 00 9) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns

an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

In hi s br ie f Dard en at tri bu te s th is st a t e men t to th e pr os ecu to r; th e tra ns cri pt 3

in di cat es , ho wev er, t ha t i t was m ad e b y Dete ct iv e St ei ge r.

-8

-Dard en co nt en ds th at an y ev id en ce con cern in g a .45 cal ib er gu n and an xb ox

was irr el ev an t an d u nf

ai rly preju di ci al be cau se he was no t ch arg ed wit h p os se ss io n

of a .45 cal ib er fir earm

. Evi de nc e is rel ev an t if it ha s "an y te nd en cy to make th e

ex is te nc e o f an y fact th at is of c on se qu en ce t o t he de te rm in at io n o f th e act io n m or e

pr ob ab le or le ss pr ob ab le th an it wou ld be wit ho ut th e ev id en ce." Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1.

Rel ev an t ev id en ce m ay be ex cl ud ed

, ho wev er, "i f it s pr ob at iv e va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y

ou twei gh ed by th e da ng er of un fai r pr ejud ic e, co nf us io n of th e is su es , or m is le ad in g

th e jury . . . ." Fed . R. Evi d. 4 03

.

W e co nc lu de th at th e ev id en ce rel at ed to th e .45 cal ib er fir earm an d an xb ox

be cam e rel e va nt aft er de fen se co un se l's cro ss ex am in at io n of Dete ct iv e

Bo et ti gh ei m er. Co un se l as ke d th e de t e c t i v e i f it were no t tru e th at th e po li ce ha d

ne ve r reco ve red a .45 cal ib er weap on , th us im pu gn in g th e CI's an ti ci pa te d te st im on y

th at Dard en ha d ha d bo th a .45 cal ib e r a n d a 9m m gu n. Bec au se of th is cro ss

ex am in at io n by th e d efen se , th e fo ll owi ng ev id en ce was rel ev an t to co rro bo rat e th e

CI's st or y : ev id en ce th at Dard en ha d pre vi ou sl y ta lk ed ab ou t hav in g a "n ic ke l," th at

t h at te rm can be us ed to refe r to a .45 cal ib er fir earm , th at su ch weap on s ca n b e

hi dd en in xb ox es , an d th at th e Hou st on s' ho us e ha d an xb ox

. The ev id en ce was no t

un fai rly p reju di ci al be cau se it di d n ot ha ve an "u nd ue te nd en cy to su gg es t de ci si on

on an im pr op er ba si s." Uni te d St at es v. Loo ki ng Cl ou d, 41 9 F.3 d 78 1, 78 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . At th e po in t in th e tri al whe re it was in tro du ced , i t wou ld

ha ve be en un de rs to od as rel ev an t to th e in di ct ed ch arg e th at he ha d po ss es se d a 9m m

ha nd gu n.

W e tu rn fin al l y t o D a rd en 's arg um en t th at hi s co nv ic ti on sh ou ld be rev ers ed

be cau se th e pr os ecu to r m ad e im pr op er st at em en ts i n cl os in g arg um en t. A

p r o s e cu to r's im

pr op er co m

m en ts du rin g cl os in g arg um en t can req ui re rev ers al o f a

co nv ic ti on if th ey "p reju di ced th e de fen da nt 's rig ht s in ob ta in in g a fai r tri al ." Uni te d

St at es v. Herb st

, 66 8 F.3 d 58 0, 58 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In de te rm in in g

whe th er th e pr os ecu to r's co nd uc t was p r e jud ic ia l, we or di na ril y lo ok to "t he

-9

-cu m

ul at iv e effe ct of th e im

pr o p r ie ti es , th e st ren gt h of th 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." I d. at 58 6– 87
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

. If th e de fen da nt ha s fai le d ti m el y to ob ject to im pr op er st at em en ts

,

a s in th is cas e, "we rev ie w on ly fo r pl ai n erro r an d rev ers e on ly un de r ex cep ti o n a l

ci rcu m st an ces ." Uni te d St a t e s v

. Dav is , 5 34 F.3 d 90 3, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Und er

th is st an da rd of rev ie w Da rd en m us t de m on st rat e "a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e

ou tc om e wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t ab se nt th e al le ge d erro r." Herb st

, 66 8 F.3 d at 58 7
(ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

W e b eg in by an al y zi ng th e co nt en t of bot h par ti es ' cl os in g arg um en ts

. In he r

in it ia l cl os in g arg um en t, th e pr os ecu to r rev ie wed th e el em en ts of each cri m e ch arg ed

a n d ex pl ai ne d ho w th e ev id en ce at tri al pr ov ed each of th os e el em en ts b e yo n d a

re a s o n a b l e do ub t. Defen se co un se l se t th e th em e fo r hi s cl os in g arg um en t wit h a

qu ot e fro m th e ch il dr en 's bo ok The Bere ns ta in Bea rs an d th e Trut h: "No m at te r ho w

y ou ho pe , no m at te r ho w y ou try, y ou can 't m ak e th e tru th ou t of a li e." He la te r sa id

"I do n't co m e rig ht ou t an d sa y , p ol ic e of fic ers are li ars

. I do n't do th at

. I th in k it 's

i na pp ro pr ia te

. Bu t as k y ou rs el f, wha t fact s ha ve y ou he ard th at jus t de fy co mm o n

se ns e[? ]" He fu rth er arg ue d th at "[n ]o m at te r ho w ha rd he ho pe d, no m at te r ho w ha rd

he tri ed

, [Det ect iv e Bo et ti gh ei m er] co ul d no t m ak e th e tru th ou t of [th e CI's ] li es " an d

th at Bo et ti gh ei m er ha d ha d to "s tre tc h[ ]" an d "m a n i p u la te [] [th e] tru th ." Defen se

co un se l al so as ke d th e jury to "i m ag in e ho w Bo et ti gh ei m er fel t whe n th ere's no th in g

a t a s e a r c h w a rran t aft er he di d al l of hi s du e di li ge nc e in th is cas e," th us im pl y in g

th at th e de te ct iv e ha d li ed ab ou t fin di ng th e 9m m gu n un de r th e m at tre ss so th at he

wou ld ha ve so m et hi ng to sh ow fo r hi s i nv es ti ga ti on

.

The pr os ecu to r be ga n he r reb ut ta l by refe rri ng to th e th em e Dard en 's at to rn ey

ha d p res en te d, s ta ti ng

Mr. Ly nc h ha s free ly us ed th e ex pr es si on s m an ip ul at io n, st ret ch in g th e

tru th

, lying

, an d I wou ld da re to sa y th at 's wha t y ou jus t he ard

. Let's go

-1 0-th ro ug h so m e of th e th in gs he jus t sa id to y ou th at were no t ba se d on th e

ev id en ce.

Sh e th en pr oc eed ed to di sc us s why th e ev i d e n c e di d no t su pp or t de fen se co un se l's

cri ti ci sm s o f th e g ov ern m en t's cas e.

Dard en arg ue s t ha t th e pr os ecu to r m ad e im pr op er st at em en ts in he r reb ut ta l

arg um en t whe n sh e fo cu se d on th e po te nt ia l co ns eq ue nc es to po li ce o f f i c e r s fo r gi vi ng fal se te st im on y an d th e ris ks th ey ta ke on th e job

. He hi gh li gh ts th e fo ll owi ng

st at em en ts as p art ic ul arl y pro bl em at ic

.

If y ou fin d t ha t t he se de te ct iv es are n ot te ll in g th e tru th

, th en wha t y ou are fin di ng is th at th ey al l go t to ge th er and th ey en te red in to a cri m in al

co ns pi racy to pu t an in no cen t m an in pr is on

. Eve ry si ng le on e of th em

. . . th ey al l go t to ge th er an d co ns pi red to co m m it a cri m e. The y ris ke d

th ei r care ers , th ey ris ke d th ei r fam il ie s, th ey ris ke d th ei r li ve s to pu t th is

m an in pr is on whe n he di dn 't do an y th in g? Doe s th at m ak e an y se ns e at
al l?

** *

If y ou do n't be li ev e al l of th es e of fic ers a n d yo u w a n t to sa y th at th ey

co ns pi red to pu t an inn oc en t m an in pr is on , lo ok at wha t th ey do

. Thi s is th e vi ol en t of

fen de rs un it

. The y ta ke th e bi gg es t ris k of al l. The y are

go in g aft er pe op le who are pr ov en to be v i ol en t, who carr y gu ns an d

cau se a ris k of ha rm to th em

. If y ou do n't be li ev e th em , y ou are te ll in g th em th at wha t th ey do is m ean in gl es s, th at th ey m ig ht as well no t do it

, th ey m ig ht as well st ay ho m e or m ay be ge t a ne w job or do n't go ou t on th e st reet s, do n't try to he lp th e ho ne st res id en ts

, th e pe op le who are he ari ng gu nf

ire ev ery ni gh t an d who are wor rie d ab ou t si tt in g ou t on th ei r po rch in th ei r own saf et y

. ** *

Bec au se y ou wou ld be te ll in g th em th at no on e ap pr eci at es th em an d no

on e ap pr eci at es th e job th ey are do in g. And I do n't th in k th at 's wha t y ou

wan t t o d o. Th an k you

.

-1 1-He arg ue s th at th es e co m m en ts in th e go ve rn m en t's reb ut ta l were es pe ci al ly

ha rm fu l be cau se he ha d no op po rtu ni ty to res po nd to th em

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Can no n, 88 F.3 d 14 95

, 15 03 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by W at so n

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 74 (2 00 7)

. Nev ert he le ss , he m ad e no ob jecti on to th em at

th e ti m e, an d ou r rev ie w is th eref or e on ly fo r pl ai n erro r. See Dav is

, 53 4 F.3 d at 91 4.

W e ha ve lo ng reco gn iz ed th at it is im pr op er for th e go ve rn m en t to im pl y th at

an acq ui tt al wou ld m ean th e jury be li ev ed th at po li ce of fic ers act ed di sh on es tl y

. See,

e.g ., Uni te d Stat es v. Mi ll er, 6 21 F.3d 72 3, 7 30

, 73 2 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ). In Mi ll er, we

co nc lu de d th at a pr os ecu to r's arg um en t, th at an acq ui tt al wou ld ha ve req ui red th e jury

to fin d th at a po li ce of

fic er was "fu dg [in g]" an d wil li ng to jeop ard i z e hi s fu tu re

c a r e er, was im

pr op er. Id

. at 73 0– 32

. W hi le th e pr os ecu to r in th is cas e n e v e r

ex pl ic it ly sa id th at an acq ui tt al wou ld ha ve req ui red fin di ng th at po li ce offi cers ha d

li ed

, sh e st ro ng ly im

pl ie d it by sa y in g "[i ]f y ou fin d th at th es e de te ct iv es are no t

te ll in g th e tru th

, th en wha t y ou are fin di ng is th at th ey

. . . en te red in to a cri m in al

co ns pi racy

. . . . Eve ry si ng le on e of th em

. . . th ey al l go t to ge th er an d co ns pi red to

co m m it a cri m e

. " Li k e t h e pr os ecu to r in Mi ll er, sh e al so fo cu se d on th e ris k to th e

of fic ers ' li ve li ho od s, sa y in g "[t ]hey ris ke d th ei r care ers

. . . to pu t th is m an in pr is on

whe n he di dn 't do an y th in g? Doe s th at m ak e an y se ns e at al l? " Sh e th en co nt in ue d

he r im pr op er arg um en t th ro ug h su gg es ti ng th at an a cq ui tt al wou ld te ll th e of fic ers

th at "n o o ne ap pr eci at es th em ."

Eve n t ho ug h t he se reb ut ta l re m ark s wer e im pr op er, o ur rev ie w in th is cas e is

on ly fo r pl ai n erro r, un li ke th e si tu at io n in Mi ll er. See 62 1 F.3 d at 72 9– 30

. Dard en

m us t th eref or e de m on st rat e "a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y t h a t t h e ou tc om e wou ld ha ve

be en di ffer en t ab se nt th e al le ge d e rro r." Herb st

, 66 8 F.3d at 58 7 (cit at io n om it te d)

. Co ns id eri ng th e reco rd as a who le

, we co nc lu de Dard en can no t m eet th i s st an da rd

be c a u s e o f d efen se co un se l's own rem ark s in cl os in g an d th e la rg e am ou nt of

ev id en ce s up po rti ng Dard en 's c on vi ct io ns

.

-1 2-W he n an al y zi ng th e ha rm fu ln es s of a pr os ecu to r's im pr op er rem ark s in cl os in g

arg um en t, we "n ot on ly weig h th e im pa ct of th e pr os ecu to r's rem ark s, bu t m us t al so

ta ke in to acco un t de fen se co un se l's op en in g sa lv o. . . . [I] f th e p ro se cu to r's rem ark s

were 'in vi te d,'

. . . su ch co m m en ts wou ld no t warra nt rev ers in g a co nv ic ti on ." Uni te d

St at es v. You ng , 47 0 U.S. 1, 12 –1 3 (1 98 5)

. Giv en d e f e n s e co un se l's at ta ck on th e

of fic e rs ' in ve st ig at io n in hi s own cl os in g arg um en t, th e pr os ecu to r's su bs eq ue nt

co m m en ts

, wh i c h at te m

pt ed to rei nf

or ce th e cred ib il it y of th e po li ce of fic ers , were

in vi te d. See id

. at 12

. Thi s is tru e of b o t h th e rem ark s th e pr os ecu to r m ad e at th e

op en in g o f he r reb ut ta l and th os e m ad e at th e en d whi ch Dard en ch al le ng es . W hi le

th e pr os ecu to r's reb ut ta l re m ark s d id cro ss th e li ne in to im pr op rie ty at so m e po in ts

,

an y pr ejud ic e to Dard en was m in im iz ed be cau se th e jury co ul d ha ve un de rs to od th em

as in te nd ed to co un te r de fen se co un se l ' s a t t a ck s on th e of fic ers ' in ve st ig at io n an d

te st im on y . See i d. at 12 , 17 –1 8.

The weal th of ev id en ce of Dard en 's gu il t on th e co un ts of co nv ic ti on in di cat es

th at th e res ul t at tri al wou ld no t h av e b een di ffer en t ab se nt th e p ro se cu to r's reb ut ta l

co m m en ts

. See Uni t e d S t a t es v. Barr era, 62 8 F.3 d 10 04

, 10 08 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )
(ci ta ti on om it te d) ("I f th e ev id en ce of gu il t is ov erwh el m in g, an im pr op er argu m en t

is le ss li ke ly to af

f e c t th e jury ve rd ic t." ). The go ve rn m en t's ev id en ce in th e cas e

be fo re th e co ur t was m uc h st ro ng e r t h a n i n Mi ll er, fo r ex am pl e, whe re th e

go ve rn m en t's cas e res te d on th e t e s t i m on y of on e of fic er an d th e co ur t reco gn iz ed

"cu rio us ph y si cal ev id en ti ary q u e s t i on s" th at cas t do ub t on Mi ll er's gu il t. See 62 1

F.3 d at 73 2. Th e p r o se cu ti on 's ev id en ce he re in cl ud ed te st im on y fro m Dete ct iv e

Bo et ti g h e i mer an d an ot he r of fic er th at Dard en ha d ad m it te d po ss es si ng th e 9m m

fir earm im m ed ia te ly aft er hi s arre st

, te st im on y fro m B o e t t i g he im er th at Dard en 's

gr an dm ot he r ha d sa id th at sh e sa w hi m pl ace a ba ll is ti c ve st on he r be d an d an ob ject

un de r th e m at tre ss sh or tl y be fo re Bo et ti gh ei m er reco ve red th e gu n th ere, Ru le 40 4( b)

t e s t i m on y th at Dard en ha d pr ev io us ly be en arre st ed aft er pl aci ng a gu n un de r a

m at tre ss as in th is cas e, te st im on y fro m th e CI th at Dard en po ss es se d a 9m m weap on

an d ha d le ft it in th e Hou st on s' ho us e, te st im on y fro m an of fic er th at he ha d ov erh eard

-1 3-a te le ph on e cal l Dard en m ad e fro m ja i l i n w h i c h he to ld a fri en d to as k hi s

gr an df at he r to cl ai m po ss es si on of th e gu n, an d te st im on y of two of fic ers ab ou t hi s

ha vi ng be en fou nd in po ss es si on of c oc ai ne ba se

.

W hi le th e di ss en t de sc rib es th e ev id en ce su pp or ti ng th e co nv ic ti on as weak

be cau se it is ba se d in pa rt on he a r s a y, two of fic ers te st ifi ed co nc ern in g th e m os t

si gn ifi can t pi ece of hear sa y : Dard en 's st at em en t at the ti m e of hi s arre st th at he ha d
pl aced th e 9m m weap on un de r a m at tre ss sh or tl y be fo re th e o f f i c e r s ha d arri ve d.

Alt ho u g h t h e gr an dp aren ts la te r de ni ed m ak in g th e st at em en ts po li ce at tri bu te d to

th em , ev id en ce th at Dard en ph on ed a fri en d f r o m ja i l an d as ke d hi m to ha ve hi s

gr an df at he r cl ai m po ss es si on of th e gu n pr ov id es an ex pl an at io n fo r why th e

gr an dp aren ts m ay ha ve ch an ge d th ei r st or ie s. The di ss en t su gg es ts th at t h e C I 's

cred ib il it y is su sp ect be cau se he is hi m se lf a co nv i c te d fel on , bu t Dete ct iv e

Bo et ti gh ei m er te st ifi ed th at he ha d ta ke n m eas ur es to co rro bo rat e th e CI's st or y whi ch

was al so su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce reg ard in g Dard en 's jail m es sa ge ab ou t a "n ic ke l"

an d a n x bo x.

Mo reo ve r, th e fac t t h a t th e jury acq ui tt ed Dard en on two of th e fiv e co un ts

su gg es ts th at th e ch al le ng ed rem ark s di d no t pr ev en t th e juro rs fro m v ie win g th e

ev id en ce fai rly an d m ai nt ai ni ng th e bu rd en of pr oo f on th e go ve rn m en t. See Uni te d

St at es v. Pl um m an , 40 9 F.3 d 91 9, 93 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Th e t r ia l reco rd ta ke n as a

who le do es no t sh ow th at D a rd en is en ti tl ed to rev ers al of hi s co nv ic ti on s.

Nev ert he le ss , pr os ecu to rs are well ad vi se d no t to ris k lo si ng co nv ic ti on s by rev ers al

fo r im pr op er re bu tt al arg um en ts

.

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

-1 4-MELLOY, Circu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I co nc ur in th e m ajor it y 's op in io n ex cep t th e po rti on co nc ern in g pr os ecu to ria l

m is co nd uc t, Part II, an te at 9

– 1 3

. Bec au se I wou ld ho ld th at th e go ve rn m en t's

m is co nd uc t in th e reb ut ta l po rti on of cl os in g arg um en t res ul te d in cu mu l a ti ve

pr ejud ic e to Lam arv in Dard en 's rig ht to a fai r tri al

, an d b e c a us e th at m is co nd uc t

im pu gn ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , an d pu b l i c rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs , I

di ss en t.

Fo r th is co ur t to rev ers e un de r pl ai n erro r rev ie w, an ap pe ll an t m us t s ho w an "'(1 ) erro r, (2 ) th at is pl ai n, an d (3 ) th at a f f e c ts su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. If al l th ree

co nd it io ns are m et

, an ap pe ll at e co ur t may t he n ex erci se it s di sc ret io n to no ti ce a

fo rfei te d erro r, b u t on ly if (4 ) th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or

pu bl ic rep ut at io n of

jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .'" Uni te d St at es v. Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d 54 3, 55 0
(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 5 2 0 U.S. 4 61 , 4 66 –6 7
(1 99 7) ). A sh owi ng th at th e erro r affe ct ed th e de fen da nt 's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s "re qu ire s

a sh owi ng th at th e erro r was pr ejud ic ia l and affe ct ed th e tr ia l's ou tc om e. Fact or s to

co ns id er in as se ss in g pr ejud ic e in cl ud e th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of an y m is co nd uc t, th e

st ren gt h of th e pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce, an d an y cu rat iv e act io ns ta ke n by th e tri al

c o u r t

. " Uni te d St at es v. Fo rem an , 58 8 F.3 d 11 59

, 11 64 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn a l

ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. "Gen eral l y s p e a ki ng , rev ers al is on ly

warra nt ed whe re th e ve rd ic t co ul d reas on ab ly ha ve be en affe ct ed b y t h e a l le ge d

m is co nd uc t." Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil le r, 62 1 F .3d 72 3, 7 30 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

I.

The m ajor it y co nc lu de s th at th e pr os ecu ti ng Ass is ta nt Uni te d St at es Att or ne y (AUSA) m ad e im

pr op er rem ark s in reb ut ta l whe n im pl y in g th at

, to acq ui t Dard en , th e jury ha d to be li ev e th e po li ce of fic ers li ed

. I fu ll y ag ree with th is co nc lu si on , as th e

AUSA's arg um en t di st or te d th e go ve rn m en t's bu rd en of pr oo f. See Uni te d St at es v.

-1 5-R e e d

, 7 2 4 F

. 2 d 67 7, 68 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ). I ag ree as well wit h th e m ajor it y 's

co nd e mn a t io n of th e AUSA's st at em en t th at , i f th e of fic ers were in de ed lying , t he n "[t ]hey ris ke d th ei r care ers , th ey ris ke d th ei r fam il ie s, th ey ris ke d th ei r li ve s to pu t th is

m an in pr is on whe n he di dn ’t do an y th in g? Doe s th at m ak e an y se ns e at al l? " The se

rem ark s were im

pr op er. See Cl os e v. Uni te d St at es , 67 9 F.3 d 71 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (In

Mi ll er, "we ex te nd ed th is bu rd en -o f-p ro of pr in ci pl e an d he l d t h at 'th e go ve rn m en t

m ad e an im

pr op er arg um en t whe n it st at ed th at an acq ui tt al req ui red th e jury to fin d

th at Offi cer Sm it h wou ld jeop ard iz e hi s fu t u r e c a r eer as a po li ce of fic er.'" (q uo ti ng

Mi ll er, 6 21 F.3d at 7 32 )).

The AUSA al so m ad e im

pr op er co m

m en ts in reb ut ta l whe n te ll in g th e jury th at

an acq ui tt al wou ld jeop ard iz e th e ru le of la w an d pl ace "h on es t res id en ts " at ris k. A

fed eral pro se cu to r m ay

no t t el l t he jury th at it m us t ch oo se be twee n a gu il ty verd ic t

an d th e sa fet y of "h on es t res id en ts ." The pr os ecu to r's pr ot ect -th e- co m m un it y

arg um en t was en ti rel y un rel at ed to th e jury's ta sk i n a cri m in al tri al

, whi ch is to

de te r m in e whe th er th e go ve rn m en t ha s pr ov ed it s cas e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

See W as hi ng to n v. Uni te d St at es , 32 7 F.2 d 79 3, 79 5 (5 th Ci r. 19 64 ) ("F ai r co m m en t

up on th e ev id en ce di d no t jus ti fy th e pr os ecu to r's st at em en t th at t h e p e o p l e o f th e

di st ric t ha d 'a rig h t t o be se cu re in th ei r ho m es .'"). "In th e tri al of cas es to a jury in

th e fed eral co ur ts

, th e arg um en ts of co un se l m us t b e c o n f

in ed to th e is su es of th e

cas e, th e ap pl ic ab le la w, th e pert inent ev id en ce, an d su ch le gi ti m at e in fere nc es as m ay

pr op erl y be dr awn th eref ro m ." Lon do n Gua ran te e & Acci de nt Co

. v. W oe lfl e, 83

F.2 d 32 5, 34 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 36 ). In th is cas e, th e AUSA de pa rte d fro m su ch arg um en ts

an d in st ead ap p eal ed to th e jury's em ot io ns

. "[P ]ros ecu to rs m ay no t ur ge juro rs to

co nv ic t a cri m in al de fen da nt in or de r to pr ot ect co m m un it y va lu es , p r es erv e ci vi l

or de r, or de te r fu tu re la wbr eak in g. The ev il lu rk in g in su ch pr os ecu to ria l ap pe al s is

th at th e de fen da nt wil l be co nv ic te d fo r reas on s who ll y irr el ev an t to hi s own gu il t or

in no cen ce." Uni te d Stat es v. Nob ari

, 57 4 F .3d 10 65 , 10 76 (9t h C ir. 20 09 ) (in te rn al

ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Vio le nc e in an y co m m un it y is cl earl y a gr eat

so ci al co nc ern , bu t "t he pr es si n g n a tu re of th e pr ob le m do es no t gi ve pr os ecu to rs

-1 6-l i c en se to en cu m be r cert ai n de fen da nt s wit h res po ns ib il it y fo r th e la rg er so ci et a l

pr ob le m in ad di ti on to th ei r own m is de ed s.

. . . [T]he pr os ecu to r in th is cas e ap pe al ed

to th e juro rs to be th e co ns ci en ce of th e co m m un it y in an im

pr op er an d in fla m

m at or y

m an ne r." Un it ed Sta te s v . Jo hn so n, 9 68 F.2d 76 8, 7 71 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2)

.

It is pa rti cu la rly no te wor th y th at

, whe n co nc lu di ng , th e AUSA hi gh li gh te d th e

ris ks po li ce of

fic ers face an d th en as ke d t h e ju r y t o co nv ic t Dard en as a to ke n of

ap pr eci at io n to la w en fo rcem en t: to do ot he rwis e "wo ul d be te ll in g [la w en fo rcem en t]

th at no on e ap pr eci at es th em an d no on e ap pr eci at es th e jo b t h e y a re do in g. And I

do n't th in k th at 's wha t y ou wan t to do ." Thi s co m m en t al on e, in m

y vi ew, su pp or ts

th e g ran ti ng of a ne w tri al . There is si m pl y no di ch ot om y

be twee n a n a cq ui tt al an d

a res pe ct fo r la w en fo rcem en t, an d it was erro r to st at e ot he rwis e. Tha t th e m em be rs

of th e ju ry m ay or m ay no t "ap pr eci at e th e job [la w en fo rcem en t] is do in g" ha s

no th in g to do wit h whe th er th e ev id en ce su pp or ts a co nv ic t i o n

. See Uni on Elec

. Lig ht & Po wer Co

. v. Sn y de r Est a t e C o., 65 F.2 d 29 7, 30 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 33 )
("[ A] rg um en ts of co un se l sh ou ld be co nf in ed to th e la w an d pe rti ne nt ev id en ce, wit h

su ch in fere nc es as m ay pr op erl y be dr awn th eref ro m ."). In st ead

, th e arg um en t se ek s

to cap it al iz e on a bi as in fav or of l a w e n f o r c e ment th at th e AUSA so ug ht to el ic it

th ro ug h refe ren ce to th e ris ks po li ce of fic ers face

. By en co ur ag in g a bi as in th e jury

an d th en req ue st in g a co nv ic ti on ba se d on th at bi as , th e AUSA cl earl y ov ers te pp ed

th e b ou nd s o f pr op rie ty.

In ad di ti on to im

pr op erl y sh ift in g th e bu rd en of pr oo f, m ak in g a pr o t e c t

- t he

co m m un it y arg um en t, an d en co ur ag in g a bi as -b as ed co nv ic ti on , th e AUS A a ga in

wen t o ut of b ou nd s b y

lev el in g per so na l att ack s on th e in te gr it y an d c om pe te nc e o f

de fen se co un se l be fo re th e jury. Fo ll owi ng th e co nc lu s i o n of de fen se co un se l's

cl os in g arg um en ts

, th e AUSA be ga n he r reb ut ta l by st at in g to th e jury: "[d ef en se

co un se l] ha s free ly us ed th e ex pr es si on s m an ip ul at io n, st ret ch in g th e tru th

, lying

, an d

I wou ld da re to sa y th at 's wha t y ou jus t he ard

. Let's go th ro ug h so m e of th e th in gs he
jus t sai d to y ou th at were no t bas ed on th e ev id en ce." In add it io n, th e AUSA as ke d

-1 7-th e jury: " W ha t m ak es [d efen se c o u n s e l ] a n ex pe rt on ho w t he po li ce are su pp os ed

to co nd uc t th ei r bu si ne ss ? He's no t." The se st at em en ts were im pr op er be cau se 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 ' o f th e de fen se te am rat he r

th an th e ev id en ce, an d be cau se th e in fla m m at or y na tu re of th e st at em en ts wa s

de si gn ed to an ge r th e jury th ro ug h ge ne ral de ni gr at io n of th e de fen se ." Uni te d St at es

v. Ro dr ig ue z, 58 1 F.3 d 77 5, 81 8– 1 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (Me ll oy, J., co nc ur rin g in pa rt

an d di ss en ti ng in pa rt) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Hol m es , 41 3 F.3 d 77 0, 77 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 )); se e al so Cl in e v. Uni te d St at es , 39 5 F.2 d 13 8, 14 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 68 ) (fi nd in g it

im pr op er fo r a p r o s e c ut or to accu se de fen se co un se l of di sh on es ty). The se

arg um en ts

, jus t as m

uc h as th e arg um en ts th e m ajo r i t y f o u nd to be im

pr op er, were

"u nd ig ni fie d an d i n te m

pe rat e, co nt ai ni ng im

pr op er in si nu at io ns an d as se rti on s

cal cu la te d to m is le ad th e jury." Uni te d St at es v. Berg er, 295 U.S. 78

, 85 (1 93 5)

. A

p r o s e c u t o r 's at ta ck on de fen se co un se l di st ract s th e jury fro m th e ta sk be fo re it

. Mo reo ve r, it "ca rri es wit h i t th e im pr im at ur of th e Gov ern m en t and [th eref or e] m ay

in du ce th e jur y t o tru st th e Gov ern m en t's jud gm en t rat he r th an it s own vi ew of th e

ev id en ce." Uni te d St at es v. You ng , 4 70 U.S. 1 , 1 8– 19 (1 98 5) . Acc or di ng ly, whe n

"t he pr os ecu to r m ak es in ap pr op ria te st at em en ts th ere is a m ul ti pl e effe ct whi ch te nd s

to ti p th e sc al es in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t." Hall v

. U n i t e d S t at es , 41 9 F.2 d 58 2,

58 8 (5 th Cir . 19 69 ).

Im pr op er bu rd en sh ift in g, app eal s to th e jury's em ot io ns , enc ou rag in g a bi as

ba s ed co nv ic ti on , an d pe rs on al at ta ck s on de fen se co un se l are "o ffen si ve to th e

di gn it y an d go od or de r wit h whi c h al l pr oc eed in gs in co ur t sh ou ld be co nd uc te d."

Vier eck v. Uni te d St at es , 3 18 U.S. 2 36 , 2 48 (1 94 3)

. Su ch c o n d u c t i s in co m pa ti bl e

wit h th e pr os ecu to r's im po rta nt ro le in ou r jud ic ia l syste m , as pr os ecu to rs are

"re pr es en t a t iv e[s ] no t of an or di na ry pa rty to a co nt ro ve rs y , bu t of a so ve rei gn ty

who se ob li ga ti on to go ve rn imp a r ti al ly is as co m pe ll in g as it s ob li ga ti on to go ve rn

at al l; an d who se in te res t, th eref or e, in a cri m in al pr os ecu ti on is no t th at it sh al l win

a cas e, bu t th at jus ti ce sh al l be do ne ." Berg er, 29 5 U.S. at 88 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es

v. O'Co nn el l, 84 1 F.2 d 14 08

, 1 4 2 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) ("C om m en ts of th is na tu re ha ve

-1 8-no pl ace in a cri m in al tri al ; th e pr os ecu to r's sp eci al du ty as a go ve rn m en t ag en t is no t

to co nv ic t, bu t to se cu re jus ti ce." ); Is aacs v. Uni te d St at es , 30 1 F.2 d 70 6, 73 6 (8 th Ci r.

19 62 ) ("[ I]n a cri m in al cas e, th e Uni te d St at es Att or ne y ha s im po se d up on hi m a hi gh

an d im po rta nt res po ns ib il it y ."). The refo re, fo r th e reas on s th e m ajor it y id en ti fie s, as

well as fo r th os e d e s c r i b e d i n m y co m m en ts ab ov e, I ag ree th at th e AUSA cl earl y

m ad e im pr op er re bu tt al rem ark s.

II.

I wou ld ho ld th at th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e AUSA's im pr op er rem ark s

pr ejud ic ed Dard en 's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. The ev id en ce ag ai ns t Dard en was no t st ro ng

en ou gh to ov erco m e th e pr ejud ic e cau se d by th os e rem ark s. Fu rth er, to th e ex te nt

th at th ere was an y "i nv it ed " reb ut ta l, th e pr os ecu to r is no t al lo wed to us e im pr op er

co m m en ts to reb ut th e d efen se arg um en ts

.

Pro se cu to ria l m is co nd uc t affe ct s a de fen da nt 's su b s t a n t i al rig ht s if it was

pr ejud ic ia l an d affe ct ed th e tri al 's ou tc om e. Uni te d St at es v

. M c C l e l l on , 57 8 F.3 d

84 6, 85 9– 86 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). "Fa ct or s to co ns id er in as se ss in g pr ejud ic e in cl ud e th e

cu m ul at iv e effe ct of an y m is co nd uc t, th e st ren gt h of th e pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce,

an d an y cu rat iv e act io ns ta ke n by t h e t r i a l c o u rt." Fo rem an , 58 8 F.3 d at 11 64
(in te rn al ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W he n co ns id eri ng th e effe ct on th e jury of th e im

pr op er st at em en ts

, th is co ur t co ns id ers th e cu m ul a t iv e im

pa ct of th e

go ve rn m en t's st at em en ts in th e co nt ex t of th e tri al as a who le

. See Hol m es , 41 3 F.3 d

at 77 4– 75 (rem an di ng fo r a ne w tri al ba se d on cu m ul at iv e erro r); Is aacs , 30 1 F.2 d at

73 7 ("Th us , we are req ui red to d e te rm in e whe th er in li gh t of al l th e fact s an d

ci rcu m st an ces , wit h pa rti cu la r em ph as is on al l of th e a r g u ment s, th e ut te ran ces

co m pl ai ne d o f so in flu en ced th e jury as to bri ng ab ou t an un jus t co nv ic ti on .").

Tak en se p a r at el y , th e im pr op er rem ark s are pr ob le m at ic fo r th e reas on s

ou tl in ed ab ov e. The ir fu ll effe ct on Dard en 's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, ho wev er, co m es in to

-1 9-sh arp er fo cu s whe n th ei r cu m ul at iv e im pa ct is co ns id ered

. "[W] e ha ve no t he re a cas e

whe re the m is co nd uc t of t he pro se cu ti ng att or ne y was s li gh t o r co nf

in ed to a si ng le

in st an ce, bu t on e whe re su ch m is co n d u c t w a s pr on ou nc ed an d pe rs is te nt

, wit h a

pr ob ab le cu m

ul at iv e effe ct up on th e jury whi ch c a n n ot be di sr eg ard ed as

in co ns eq ue nt ia l." Berg er, 29 5 U.S. at 89

. The AUSA's m is co nd uc t in c l os in g 4

arg um en t was pe rs is te nt an d va ri e d

. B e f o r e th e jury, th e AUSA: crea te d a fal se

d i c h o t o m y be twee n an acq ui tt al an d a cri m in al co ns pi racy by th e po li ce, m a d e a

pr ot ect -th e-co m

m un it y arg um en t, le ve le d pe rs on al at ta ck s ag ai ns t de fen se co un se l's

in te gr it y an d c om pe te nc e, an d s ou gh t t o i nf la m e th e jury and th en be ne fit fro m th at

bi as

. The sh eer vo lu m e of im pr op er st at em en ts st r o n g l y su gg es ts th e pr es en ce of

cu m ul at iv e pr ejud ic e. Fu rth er, de fen se co un se l ha d no op po r t u n i t y to res po nd to

th es e st at em en ts

, as th e AUSA m ad e t h e s e pa te nt ly im pr op er rem ark s du rin g th e

reb ut ta l po rti on of cl os in g arg um en ts

. See Mi ll er, 62 1 F.3 d at 73 2 ("[ T] he cu m ul at iv e

effe ct was hi gh be cau se of th e ti m in g of th e co m m en ts ."); Hol m es , 41 3 F.3 d at 77 6.

I wou ld ho ld th at th e cu mu l a t i ve effe ct of th e im pr op er st at em en ts was

si gn ifi can t en ou g h t o a f fect Dard en 's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. By im pu gn in g de fen se

co un se l's co m

pe te nc e an d in te gr it y , th e AUSA la id cl ai m t o su pe rio r le ga l

acu m en —t he reb y m ag ni fy in g th e jury's te nd en cy to tru st th e go ve rn m en t. Bec au se

of th is

, whe n th e AUSA m ad e ot he r im pr op er st at em en ts

, th e jury was ap t to rel y on

th os e st at em en ts no t on ly be cau se th ey carr ie d th e im pr im at ur of th e go ve rn m en t bu t

al so be cau se th e pr os ecu to r's at ta ck s on de fen se c o u n se l "s ug ge st [ed ] br oa de r

kn owl ed ge, ex pe rie nc e an d ex pe rti se by th e go ve rn m en t in su ch m at te rs ." Ro dr ig ue z,

58 1 F.3 d at 81 9 (Me ll oy, J., co nc ur rin g in pa rt an d di ss en ti ng in pa rt)

. The Su pr em e

Co ur t lo ng ag o p r e s u med th at juri es ha ve "co nf id en ce th at [th e pr os ecu to r's

ob li ga ti on s] wil l be fai th fu ll y ob se rv ed ," y et as m ad e cl ear i n th is cas e, be cau se of

I no te

, ho wev er, th at ev en "a si ng le m is st ep on th e pa rt of th e pr os ecu to r m ay 4

be so de st ru ct iv e of t h e rig ht to a fai r tri al th at rev ers al is m an da te d." Jo hn so n, 96 8

F.2 d a t 7 71 –7 72 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

.

-2 0-th at co nf

ide nc e, the pr ose cuto r's "i m pr op er su gg es ti on s, in si nu at io ns , an d, es pe ci al ly,

as se rti on s of pe rs on al k n owl ed ge are ap t to carr y m uc h weig ht ag ai ns t th e accu se d

whe n t he y

sh ou ld pro pe rly carry

no ne ." Ber ge r, 29 5 U.S. at 88

.

Fu rth er, I do no t be li ev e th e "i nv it ed res po ns e" doct rin e jus ti fie s th e co m m en ts

. It is tru e th at de fen se co un se l to ok ha rd sh ot s at th e in ve st ig at in g of fic ers , es se nt ia ll y

accu si ng th em of be in g la zy an d c on du ct in g a sl op py i nv es ti ga ti on

. W hi le de fen se

co un se l fo cu se d hi s arg um en ts ab ou t lying on th e co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t— hi m se lf a

co nv ic te d fel on —an d di d no t ex pl ic it ly accu se th e of fic ers of fab ric at in g te st im on y , I co nc ed e he cam e ve ry cl os e to th at li ne

. The pr os ecu to r jus ti fia bl y wan te d to co m e

to th e de fen se of th e te st ifyin g of fic ers

. Howev er, th at do es no t g i v e li cen se to

en ga ge in pe rs on al at ta ck s on de fe n se co un se l, an d ne it he r di d it li cen se th e

pr os ecu to r's ap pe al to jury bi as

. If de fen se co un se l op en ed th e do or at al l, tha t do or

was on ly op en ed to arg um en ts th at rig ht th e sc al es : it di d n o t o pe n th e do or to

im pr op er arg um en t li m it ed on ly by th e p r o s ecu to r's im ag in at io n. See Ch ic ag o &

N.W

. Ry

. Co

. v. Kell y , 84 F.2 d 56 9, 57 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 36 ) ("Whi le im pr op er arg um en t
by on e co un se l m ay el ic it a res po ns e by hi s op po ne nt whi ch is al so im pr op er, wit ho ut

req ui rin g a rev ers al

, it do es no t op en up th e en ti re fie ld to im pr o p e r arg um en t." ).

Acco rd in gl y , I di sa gr ee wit h th e m ajor it y 's su gg es ti on th at al l of th e p r o s e cu to r's

im pr op er st at em en ts were in vi te d. See Uni te d St at es v. Fl y nn , 19 6 F.3 d 92 7, 93 0 (8 th

Ci r. 19 99 ) ("When

, as he re, th e pr os ecu to r's al le ge dl y im pr op er co m

m e nt s are in

res p o n s e to th e de fen da nt 's at ta ck

, we are cal le d up on to de te rm in e whe th er th e

pr os ecu to r's co m

m en ts were a fa ir r es po ns e.").

The pr os ecu to r's pe rs on al at ta ck s o n d e f en se co un se l, pl ea fo r th e jury to act

as a ge ne ral bu lwar k fo r la w an d or d e r , a pp eal s to em ot io n ov er reas on , an d

in fla m at io n of jury bi as were al l im pr op er an d can no t be who ll y e x cu se d by th e

"i nv it ed res po ns e" do ct rin e. Here, "u se of t he do ct rin e . . . m in im iz [es ] th e g rav it y

of vi rtu al ly un ch eck ed pr os ecu to ria l ap pe al s go in g far be y on d a 'fai r' res po ns e to th e

de fen se co un se l's arg um en ts ." You ng , 47 0 U.S. at 29 (Bre nn an , J., di ss en ti ng ); se e

-2 1-al so id

. ("R at he r th an ap pl y th e do ct rin e as a li mite d co rrec ti ve , co ur ts freq ue nt ly

em pl oy it as a ru le of un cl ean ha nd s th at al to ge th er pr ev en ts a de fen da nt fro m

su cces sf ul ly ch al le ng in g pr os ecu to ria l im pr op rie ti es ."). Alt ho ug h th e AUSA, "as an

ad vo cat e, is en ti tl ed to m ak e a fai r res po ns e to th e arg um en ts of de fen se co un se l, in

[th is ] cas e, th e [AUSA's] res po ns e was no t fai r." Uni te d St at es v. Lee, 74 3 F.2 d 12 40

, 12 55 (8t h C ir. 1 98 4)

.

Turn in g to th e ne xt fact or —t he st ren gt h of th e pr op erl y ad m it te d ev id en ce— I

be li ev e th at th e go ve rnm en t's cas e ag ai ns t Dard en was no t st ro ng en ou gh to ov erco m e

th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e m is co nd uc t. W hi le a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce wou ld li ke ly fai l in th i s c as e, su ch a ch al le ng e is no t be fo re th is co ur t.

In st ead

, t h e qu es ti on is whe th er, in li gh t of th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce, th ere is a

"'re as on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e ou tc om e wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t ab se nt th e

al le ge d erro r.'" Uni te d Stat es v. Herb st

, 66 8 F.3 d 58 0, 58 7 (8t h Cir. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng

Uni te d St at es v. Lit tre ll

, 43 9 F.3 d 87 5

, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 )). In m ak in g th at

as se ss m en t, th e co ur t m

us t weig h th e cu m

ul at iv e effe ct of th e m is co nd uc t ag ai ns t th e

rel at iv e st ren gt h of the ev id en ce. Mi ll er, 621 F.3 d at 73 2. " 'If t he ev id en ce of gui lt

is ov erwh el m in g, an im

pr op er arg um en t is le ss li ke ly t o affe ct th e jury v erd ic t. On

th e co nt rary, if th e ev id en ce of gu il t is weak or te nu ou s, th e ex is te nc e of pr ejud ic e is

m or e eas il y as su m ed .'" Jo hn so n, 96 8 F.2 d at 77 2 ( q u o t i n g U ni te d St at es v. Sp la in

, 54 5 F .2d 11 31 , 11 35 (8t h C ir. 1 97 6) ).

As the m ajor it y op in io n m ak es cl ear, th e po ss es si on cas e ag ai ns t Dard en tu rn ed

al m os t en ti rel y on of

fic er te st im on y , m

uc h of whi ch was he ars ay

. The rem ai nd er of

th e ev id en ce— a pr io r in ci de nt in whi ch Dard en pl aced a gu n un de r a m at tre ss , a nd

te st im on y fro m a co nf

id en ti al in fo rm an t th at Dard en po ss es se d a 9m m weap on —was

ci rcu m st an ti al an d tu rn ed on th e jury's cred ib il it y de te rm in at io n, res pe ct iv el y

. Thu s,

-2 2-th e ev id en ce of Dard en 's gu il t was ne it he r ov erwh el m in g n or ve ry st ro ng

. Ind eed

,

5

th is cas e "m ay pr op erl y be ch arac te riz ed as weak —d ep en di ng , a s i t d id

, up on th e

te st im on y of [a co nv ic te d fel on ]. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , pr ejud ic e to th e cau se of th e

accu se d is so hi gh ly pr ob ab le th at we are no t jus ti fie d in as su m in g it s no ne xi st en ce."

Berg er, 2 95 U.S. at 8 9.

Bu t fo r de fen se co un se l's f a i l ur e to pr es erv e th e erro r, th is cas e wou ld fal l

sq ua rel y wit hi n th e co ns te ll at io n of cas es i n whi ch th is co ur t ha s rev ers ed a

co nv ic ti on fo r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t. In Uni te d St a t e s v. Nor to n, 63 9 F.2 d 42 7
(8 th Ci r. 19 81 ), we rev ers ed a co nv ic ti on be cau se "[m ]uch of th e te st im on y in di cat in g

th at Nor to n po ss es se d th e gu n was eq ui vo cal

, an d a de fen se wit ne ss reb ut te d, at le as t

in pa rt, th e te st im on y th at Nor to n had sa id he ha d a sh ot gu n in th e be dr oo m ." Id

. at

42 9. In th is cas e, Dard en an d hi s gr an dp aren ts co nt ro ve rte d th e st at em en ts at tri bu te d

to th em by l aw en fo rcem en t at tri al

. In Uni te d S ta te s v. Co nr ad , 3 20 F.3 d 85 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 03 ), th is co ur t ov ert ur ne d a co nv ic ti on fo r pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t beca us e

th e e v i d e n ce li nk in g th e de fen da nt to a fir earm fo un d in th e de fen da nt 's sh ared

res id en ce was eq ui vo cal

. Id

. at 85 6. Here, it is cl ear th at Dard en di d no t en joy

ex cl us iv e do m in io n ov er th e ho us e or ov er th e ro om in whi ch th e fir earm was fo un d.

Fi na ll y , in Mi ll er, 6 2 1 F

. 3 d at 73 2, th is co ur t rev ers ed a co nv ic ti on ba se d on

pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t b ecau se th e p os se ss io n cas e ag ai ns t th e d efen da nt hi ng ed

Thi s co u r t r e g u la rly de sc rib es th e pr oo f ne ed ed to ov erco m e m is co nd uc t as 5

ei th er "o ve rwh el m in g" or "v ery st ro ng ." Uni te d St at es v. Si ng e r , 6 6 0 F

. 2 d 12 95

, 13 05 (8 th Ci r. 19 81 ) ("We

. . . affi rm on ly be cau se of th e ve ry st ro ng cas e ag ai ns t th e d e fen da nt an d th e pr om

pt cau ti on ary act io ns ta ke n by t he di st ric t jud ge ."); se e al so Jo hn so n, 96 8 F.2 d at 77 2 ("I n th e pr es en t cas e, th e ev id en ce of Jo hn so n's gu il t is far

fro m ov erwh el m in g." ); Uni te d St at es v. Kin g, 61 6 F. 2d 10 34 , 1 04 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 80 ) ("Th e ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce of gu il t in th is cas e co nv in ces us th at th e pr os ecu to r's

co m m en t co ul d no t ha ve pr ejud ic ed Kin g or affe ct ed th e jury ve rd ic t." ); Sp la in

, 54 5

F.2 d a t 11 35 –1 13 6 ("Th e ov erwh el m in g ev id en ce o f gu il t i n t hi s ca se co nv in ces us th at th e p ro se cu to r's co m m en t co ul d n ot ha ve pr ejud ic ed Sp la in or affe ct ed th e jury

ve rd ic t." ).

-2 3-pr im ari ly up on te st im on y of la w en fo rcem en t— te st imo n y t h a t th e type of

pr os ecu to ria l m is co n d u ct at is su e in th is cas e ren de red pa rti cu la rly di ffi cu lt fo r th e jury to co m

pe te nt ly ev al ua te

. Id

. ("[ T] he ev id en ce s h o w i n g [th at th e de fen da nt ]

po ss es se d a gu n m ay be su ffi ci en t, bu t it is no t ov erwh el m in g." ). It was th e jury's ro le

to ev al ua te th is off

ic er t es ti m on y an d to de te rm in e whe th er and ho w m uc h t o c red it

it

, bu t th e pr os ecu to r co m pr om is ed th at ro le by em

pl oyin g ta ct ic s "d es ig ne d to el ic it

em ot io na l rat he r th an de li be rat iv e co ns id erat io n" in th e jury. Ro dr ig ue z, 58 1 F.3 d at

81 9 (M el lo y , J., co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art ).

W hi le th e ev id en ce in th is cas e is si m il ar to th at fo un d in Co nr ad

, Mi ll er, an d

Nor to n, th e le ve l of pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t in th is cas e far ou ts tri ps th e m is co nd uc t

in th os e cas es

. In Co nr ad an d Nor to n, th e so le in st an ce of m is co nd uc t w a s th e

pr os ecu to r's de sc rip ti on to th e jury of th e p u r p o s e be hi nd th e Gun Co nt ro l Act.

Co nr ad

, 32 0 F.3 d at 85 5; Nor to n, 63 9 F.2 d at 42 8– 29

. In M i l l e r , th e go ve rn m en t

"i ns in ua te d th at to fin d Mil le r in no cen t, the jury m us t bel ie ve th at Offi cer Sm it h is "
lying an d th at

, to acq ui t, th e jury m us t fin d "t ha t Offi cer Sm it h wou ld jeop ard iz e hi s

fu tu re care er as a po li ce of fic er." Mi ll er 62 1 F.3 d at 73 0– 73 2

. Th e pr os ecu to ria l

m is co n d u c t i n t h os e cas es pa le s in co m pa ris on to th e AUSA's act io ns in th is cas e,

whi ch I ha ve reco un te d at le ng th ab ov e. Thu s, ev en if "t he ev id en ce is st ro ng in th is

c a se , t he te no r of th e pr os ecu ti on se ve rel y pr ejud ic ed th e de fen da nt ." Co nr a d

, 3 2 0

F.3 d a t 8 56

.

Fi na ll y , I do no t vi ew th e jury's p a r t i a l acq ui tt al of Dard en as so m eh ow

de m on st rat in g th at th e pr os ecu to r's m is co nd uc t di d no t pr ej u d i c e Dard en

. Rat he r, "[t ]he jury's de ci si on can jus t as na tu ral ly be in te rp ret ed to su gg es t th at th e ev id en ce

was cl os e an d th e ve rd ic t a co m pr om is e, th us su pp or ti ng a be li ef th at th e pr os ecu to r's

[m is c o n d u c t ]

. . . di d in fact ha ve a pr ejud ic ia l im pa ct ." You ng , 47 0 U.S. at 32
(Bre nn an , J., di ss en ti ng ).

-2 4-Bal an ci ng , as we m us t, th e st ren gt h of th e ev id en ce a g ai ns t th e cu m ul at iv e

effe ct of th e pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t, I am co m pe ll ed to fin d pr ejud ic e su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h "'a reasonab le prob ab il it y th at th e ou tc om e wou ld ha ve be en di ffer en t ab se nt

th e al le ge d erro r

. ' " Herb st

, 66 8 F.3 d at 58 7 (q uo ti ng Lit tre ll

, 43 9 F.3 d at 88 3) ; se e

al so Berg er, 29 5 U.S. at 8 9 ( "In th es e ci rcu m st an ces pr ejud ic e to th e cau se of th e

accu se d is so hi gh ly pr ob ab le th at we are no t jus ti fie d in as su m in g it s no ne xi st en ce." ).

Acco rd in gl y , th e co m

m en ts affe ct ed Dard en 's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d I no w co ns id er

whe th er "t he erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e f ai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of
jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d at 55 0 (q uo ti ng Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 52 0

U.S. 46 1, 4 66 -6 7 (1 99 7) ); s ee al so Ru sh v. Sm it h, 5 6 F .3d 91 8, 9 24 (8t h Cir. 19 95 )
(Han se n, J

. , c on cu rri ng sp eci al ly) (" I

. . . wo ul d ex erci se ou r rem ed ia l di sc ret io n to

rev ers e fo r a ne w tri al be cau se th e erro r in th is cas e st rik es at th e he art of th e in te gr it y

or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pro ceed in gs ." (int ern al ci ta ti on an d qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ).

III.

I wou ld ho ld th at th e erro r in th is cas e sa ti sf ie s th e fo ur th cri te rio n fo r rev ers al

un de r pl ai n erro r rev ie w, in th at it se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , an d pu bl ic

rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs , and I wou ld acco rd in gl y rev ers e an d re m an d fo r

a ne w tri al

. See Pi ran i, 40 6 F.3 d at 55 0. Thi s fo ur th an d fin al fact or in th e pl ai n erro r

an al y si s art ic ul at ed in Uni te d St at es v. Olan o, 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 2 (1 99 3)

, co m es fro m

Uni te d St at es v. Atk in so n, 29 7 U.S. 15 7 ( 1 9 36 ), in whi ch th e Su pr em e Co ur t

wro te : "In ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces , es pe ci al ly in cri m in al cas es , ap pe ll at e co ur ts

, in th e pu bl ic in te res t, m ay , of th ei r own m ot io n, no ti ce erro rs to whi ch no ex cep ti on

ha s be en ta ke n, if th e erro rs are ob vi ou s , o r if th ey ot he rwis e se rio us ly affe ct th e

fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed i n g s

. " Id

. at 16 0. Fo r

su pp or t, th e Atk in so n Co ur t ci te d two pr io r cas es , bo th of whi ch reaf fir m ed a fed eral

ap pe ll at e co ur t's au th or it y to rev ers e f o l l o w in g pr ejud ic ia l st at em en ts m ad e to th e jury. See Atk in so n, 29 7 U.S. at 16 0 (ci ti ng Bras fie ld v. Uni te d St at es , 27 2 U.S. 44 8,

-2 5-4 5 0 ( 19 26 ) (rev ers in g cri m in al co nv ic ti on fo ll owi ng jud ge 's in qu iry as to th e

nu m eri cal di vi si on of t h e ju r y whi le th e jury was de ad lo ck ed ) an d N.Y. Cen t. R.R.

Co

. v. Jo hn so n, 27 9 U.S. 31 0, 31 8 (1 92 9) (rev e r s i ng jury ve rd ic t ba se d on

res po nd en t's "b it te r an d pa ss io na te at ta ck on pe ti ti on er's co nd uc t of th e cas e" be fo re

th e jury)). The se cas es de m on st rat e th at

, whe n en ga gi ng in pl ai n erro r rev ie w,

ap pe ll at e co ur ts sh ou ld be es pe ci al ly m in df ul an d pr ot ect iv e of th e jury's un iq ue ro le

in or de r th at "t he co nf

id en ce of th e pu bl ic in [th e ad m in is tra ti on o f t h e l aw] be

m ai nt ai ne d." Cl y at t v. Uni te d S ta te s, 1 97 U.S. 20 7, 2 22 (19 05 ); se e al so Bras fie ld

, 27 2 U.S. at 4 5 0 (p la in erro r rev ie w is pa rti cu la rly ap pr op ria te "wh ere th e erro r

. . . affe ct s th e pr op er rel at io ns of th e co ur t to th e jury."); Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 39 9

F.3 d 45 0, 45 5 (2d Ci r. 20 05 ) ("Th e sa li en t ch arac te ris ti c of [th e cas es un de rp in ni ng

th e fo ur th Olan o fact or ] is th at th e is su e was whe th er to co rrec t an un pr es erv ed erro r

th at oc cu rred in th e co nd uc t of a jury tri al ."). Here, th e AUSA's pe rs is te nt m is co nd uc t

was a su st ai ne d as sa ul t on th e jury's ab il it y to fu lfi l th at ro le

, th us di rect ly im pl ic at in g

th e co re co nc ern s an im at in g th e fo ur th Olan o fact or

. See You ng , 47 0 U.S. at 33 n.1 6
(Bre nn an , J., di ss en ti ng ) ("[ A] pa tt ern an d pr act ic e of in te nt io na l pr os ecu to ria l

m is co nd uc t th at ha s no t be en de te rred th ro ug h ot he r rem ed ie s, m ay well so se rio us ly

un de rm in e th e in te gr it y of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs as to su p p o rt rev ers al un de r th e pl ai n- erro r do ct rin e."); Uni te d St at es v. Vau gh n, 44 3 F.2 d 92

, 95 (2 d Ci r. 19 71 ) ("As

Pro fes so r W rig ht ha s st at ed

, 'It is no t a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce to co nv ic t a gu il ty m an , bu t if he is co nv ic te d in a way in co ns is te nt wit h th e fai rn es s an d in te gr it y of jud ic ia l

pr oc eed in gs , th en th e co ur ts sh ou ld in vo ke th e pl ai n erro r ru le in or de r to pr ot ect th ei r

own pu bl ic rep ut at io n.'" ) (q uo ti ng 3 W rig ht

, Fed eral Practic e an d Pr oc ed ur e, Cr im inal

§ 85 6 (1 96 9) ). The AUSA's act io ns , whi le br in gi ng bo th "[t he pr os ecu to r's ] o f f ic e

an d th e co ur ts in to di st ru st ," Peo pl e v. Lee Ch uc k, 78 Cal

. 31 7, 32 9 (1 88 9)

, de pr iv ed

Dard en of hi s "ri gh t to a ve rd ic t[] un in flu en ced by th e ap pe al s of co un se l to pa ss io n

or pr ejud ic e." N.Y. Cen t. R.R. Co

., 27 9 U.S

. at 31 8. I di ss en t fro m th e m ajor it y 's

ho ld in g th at th e pr os ecu to r's im pr op er st at em en ts in th is cas e do no t warra nt a ne w

tri al

.



## ______________________________

-2 6-