Opinion ID: 866154
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor’s Vouching for the Government

Text: Witnesses by Placing the Authority of the District Court Behind Their Testimony. Tucker also contends that the prosecutor misrep- resented to the jury the nature of the Government witnesses’ plea agreements by implying that the reliability of their testimony was vouched for by the district court. Specifically, Tucker argues that the prosecutor represented that the plea agreements were actually between the court and the witnesses. During rebuttal, the prosecutor explained that Judge Randa, “who’s sitting in here . . . listening to this testimony . . . examining what these witnesses say” would make the ultimate decision as to whether the witnesses would receive the benefit of their plea agreements. The Government concedes that the prosecutor’s remarks were “inartfully” phrased, and we agree. A prosecutor may not bolster the credibility of a witness by implying 16 No. 12-1281 that facts not before the jury lend to the witness’ credibility. United States v. Anderson, 303 F.3d 847, 855 (7th Cir. 2002). Here, the prosecutor’s maladroit handling of his rebuttal argument is regrettable. However, when taken in context, it is apparent that the prosecutor was attempting to convey to the jury that the judge makes the ultimate determination of the testifying co-conspirators’ sentence but does not determine their credibility.