Opinion ID: 77852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closing Argument: Attack on Foley's Counsel

Text: Foley next argues that the district court erred when it denied him a mistrial after the prosecutor made a remark during closing argument that Foley contends was an attempt to impugn the integrity of his counsel. During the closing argument, the prosecutor stated, Tom Foley himself, when the FBI interviewed him, now this is months ago, before he has had a chance to hear the whole trial, before he has had a chance to meet with his lawyer. . . . Foley argues that the remark suggests that Foley changed his story after he met with his lawyer. This argument fails because the remark, when read in context, does not question the integrity of Foley's attorney. The prosecutor's remark did not allege or even imply that Foley's lawyer suborned perjury. See United States v. O'Keefe, 461 F.3d 1338, 1344, 1350 (11th Cir.2006) (concluding that the prosecutor's remark that defense counsel had spoon-fed a bogus theory of the case for the defendant to regurgitate[] on the stand was improper, but affirming because the defendant did not establish prejudice). After the challenged remark, the prosecutor argued that Foley had the opportunity to review discovery materials held by the government before Foley changed the story he had told the FBI. The court sustained Foley's objection to the argument and instructed the jury to disregard the remark. Foley cannot establish that this remark was objectionable or prejudicial.