Opinion ID: 386012
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: claims of martelli

Text: 54 Martelli raises two additional claims on appeal relating to remarks in the prosecutor's summation which he claims were improper and mandate reversal of his conviction. The first comment by the prosecutor was: 55 You will also recall that Anthony Martelli made a statement to one of the detectives after being advised of his rights. He admitted that he flew on that particular flight. He was shown the ticket and admitted flying in January of 1976 with several of his friends but stated he could not remember their names. 56 The portion relating to Martelli's recollection of his companions, while true, was not in evidence. When Martelli's counsel raised this objection, the judge responded correctly that the jury's recollection controlled. 57 While it was improper to include facts not in evidence in the summation, the error here was harmless. Whether or not Martelli could name the individuals who accompanied him on the flight was of virtually no significance to the matters in dispute, which were whether Martelli used an illegally obtained ticket and knew how it was obtained. There was substantial evidence of other similar transactions in which he had engaged. This apparently inadvertent reference to a fact of little significance not in evidence did not deprive him of a fair trial. See United States v. Suarez, 588 F.2d 352, 355 (2d Cir. 1978); United States v. Tortora, 464 F.2d 1202, 1207 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Santoro v. United States, 409 U.S. 1063, 93 S.Ct. 554, 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972). 58 Martelli's second claim arises from the prosecutor's statement in summation: 59 Also, this was a cash business and the business involved the selling of these airline tickets at substantial discounts. There were no restrictions on these tickets. The people who ordered these tickets could get first-class or regular tickets. They could order the tickets for any destination anytime. It didn't matter whether the tickets were for night travel or day travel, weekend travel, weekday travel. I think all of your common knowledge from advertised airline rates indicates that any kind of reduced or discounted airline fares depends on some kind of special restriction from the airline, none of which was found in any of these cases. 60 The prosecutor's purpose was to show that the defendants must have known there was something wrong with the tickets. Martelli objects that it referred to matter not in the record. While the extent of the jurors' common knowledge in this respect is dubious, there had been considerable testimony from witnesses, including an official of a major airline, as to the circumstances and conditions under which tickets could be purchased at a discount. We do not believe that this comment was sufficiently objectionable to warrant reversal.