Opinion ID: 2643963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Safety and Security

Text: The district court cites three references in the prosecution's closing to safety or security of the exchangors' funds as improper. In fact, all three are permissible arguments. The first statement that the district court lists as wrongful is the government's assertion that, in full, Carpenter took in millions of dollars in real estate exchangors' money based on false and fraudulent pretenses that Benistar would protect the security and safety of the exchangors' money and that the money would be held for the exchangors' benefit to buy replacement property. The argument, within a few sentences, went on to say that Carpenter knew not a single document advised exchangors that he was taking the risks he did with their money and knew that if the exchangors had been so advised, they never would have contracted with Benistar. The government acknowledged that there was no dispute as to what the documents provided or the losses suffered, then said: [W]hat is in dispute here is how this evidence fits into what you must decide . . . which is whether Mr. Carpenter committed mail and wire fraud by his conduct. The government argued that the exchangors, all in the real estate business, needed to identify an exchange property within 45 days and under no circumstances could take longer than 180 days to complete their exchanges, and that Benistar knew its use of the exchangors' money was so limited. As -14- the prosecution phrased it, [r]isking all of the funds to be held short term for real estate purposes is simply inconsistent with the business Carpenter represented [Benistar] to be. The prosecution then turned to what the marketing documents said, such as [a]sk about the security of your funds and find out what guaranties are offered, and [Benistar] has a longstanding reputation for trustworthiness. The argument then continued with references to express language in the other documents given to exchangors. This first statement is the very first sentence of the prosecution's closing and simply states the government's theory of the case. While the government may not make unfair statements in its closing, see Carpenter, 494 F.3d at 23, it is not barred from stating its theory of the case. Cf. Fowler v. Warden, N.H. State Prison, No. 93-1668, 1994 WL 44833, at  (1st Cir. Feb. 15, 1994) (per curiam) (finding seemingly improper statement not improper when taken in context as first sentence of closing argument responding to defense's theory of the case). While the government did not say explicitly that it was asking the jury to draw an inference from the documents and facts, that was the structure of the argument as a whole. The statement was not impermissible. The second statement that the district court faults is the government's assertion that the marketing documents . . . emphasized the safety and security of the money. This statement -15- was not impermissible.5 Like the first statement, it also served as an introduction and was followed by direct quotations from admitted documents that could easily be read as emphasizing precisely that safety and security. Cf. United States v. Robinson, 473 F.3d 387, 397 (1st Cir. 2007). For example, the government went on to reference marketing materials that told potential exchangors comparing potential intermediaries to ask about the security of your funds and to consider Benistar's longstanding reputation for trustworthiness and the reliance on the stated role of Benistar as a fiduciary. The final statement that the district court found improper on this subject was the government's assertion that the representations that the money is going to be held for the exchangors' benefit and that it will be held safe and secure [are] false because [Carpenter] can't meet the obligations that he owes to other exchangors. The district court's objection was that this statement asserts as a fact what is available only inferentially, that Carpenter promised that the money would be kept safe. This statement builds off of the prosecution's earlier argument about the representations that were made and uses the conclusion from that argument as the starting point for a new one. Cf. United States v. Martínez-Medina, 279 F.3d 105, 119 (1st Cir. 2002) 5 In his own closing, Carpenter stressed the language of the same documents and disputed whether they could be read as promising security at all. -16- (finding statements in closing argument not improper when they appear reasonably supported by the record or are within the prerogative of the prosecution to characterize the evidence presented at trial and argue certain inferences to the jury.). In the context of the closing argument as a whole, we see nothing improper about this assertion.6