Opinion ID: 530736
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Closing Statement and Rebuttal

Text: 36 Escruceria also objected to the prosecutor's closing remarks which referred to this as an organized crime case. As discussed above, however, the use of the term organized crime, even if improper, appears to have been nonprejudicial. Escruceria further claims that the part of the prosecutor's rebuttal which discussed the Witness Protection Program (WPP) was unduly prejudicial. These comments, however, appear to have been proper. 37  'The closing argument of the Prosecutor must be considered in light of the previous arguments of defense counsel in order to determine whether there was provocation for what the prosecutor said.'  Harrison, supra, at 1053, quoting United States v. Hoffa, 349 F.2d 20, 50 (6th Cir.1965), aff'd, 385 U.S. 293 (1966). In its closing, the defense had argued that Gutierrez's testimony was less than credible, because of the benefits inuring to him via the WPP. Specifically, defense counsel told the jury: 38 Now that he's arrested, what does Bill Gutierrez realize? Hey, they arrested this man on what I said over the telephone. This is my big ticket. He knows that he's a necessary witness. He knows that he's the only witness. He knows that the government needs him. So what happens now? He ups the ante. He says, Hey, I'm afraid. I'm afraid, the old deal isn't in tact anymore, I want more. I'm afraid. If I'm going to testify against this guy, you have to put me under the Witness Protection Program. What's the Witness Protection Program? They give a guy a new name, a new identity, and they give him a job somewhere. The prosecutor would have you think that he's going to jail. That's crazy. So, think about this. 39 In his rebuttal, the prosecuting attorney stated to the jury: 40 I also talked about the Witness Protection Program. [Defense] counsel told you that because several of the government's witnesses are in the Witness Protection Program and that means they are not going to jail, that Bill Gutierrez is not going to jail. That is completely wrong. The Witness Protection Program is approved by the Marshal Service, not by this office, not by the U.S. Attorney's office. It's approved by the Marshals and it's approved for those people who have a documented threat against their lives or their family's life by criminal organizations like the one headed by Delgado. And when he goes to jail, and he's facing twenty years, he will go in under the Witness Protection Program, which means he will be isolated so he doesn't get killed in jail. That's what the Witness Protection Program means, is to keep people who do decide to cooperate from getting killed by criminal organizations and heads of organizations like Delgado's. That's what it means. 41 We find that the prosecutor's rebuttal remarks concerning the WPP were invited by the defense counsel's statements concerning both the WPP and Gutierrez's lack of jail time, and were therefore proper. 42 Finally, Escruceria objects to the remark the prosecutor made in closing his rebuttal. The prosecutor stated: 43 Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention. I ask you to consider the evidence and then to hold this defendant accountable. Something has to be done and I ask you to hold this defendant accountable for every count so we can do something to stop this. 44 Escruceria claims that under United States v. Pupo, 841 F.2d 1235 (4th Cir.1988), such a statement was improper. Pupo involved a prosecutor who closed his argument by urging the jury to 'make that statement so that we can address these types of conspiracies that are taking place in our community.'  841 F.2d at 1240. The court found this remark improper because it could suggest to the jury that they should convict the defendants not for their participation in these crimes, but merely to make a statement against narcotics crimes in general or to prevent future crimes. Id. The Pupo court went on to hold, however, that this statement did not constitute reversible error, commenting that, the improper remarks were isolated and were not deliberately made to direct the jury's attention to extraneous matters. Although the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming ... it was adequate [and] the degree to which the remarks could have prejudiced the jury was relatively small. Id. 45 Even if improper, then, the prosecutor's remark on rebuttal does not appear to constitute reversible error. As in Pupo, the remark was isolated, and therefore the degree to which it could have misled and prejudiced the jury was small. Furthermore, the evidence of guilt in this case, while perhaps not overwhelming, also appears to have been more than merely adequate. 46