Opinion ID: 625333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper References to an Organization

Text: Adin next argues that, even though the district court granted a motion in limine to prevent any witness from testifying about possible sources of the money found in the van, the prosecutor in cross-examination and argument referred to the existence and involvement of a larger organization, and that this requires a new trial. In closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the person or persons that were calling and said, That's somebody who has said `my money better be in Mexico at 2 o'clock.' But considering the prosecutor's comment in context, we see that Israel's counsel in her opening statement referred to the person who was really responsible for that money. Adin's defense was that an unknown third party had hidden cash inside the sealed box and that Adin had unknowingly loaded it into the van. Defendants argued that others were involved and that these others had tricked Defendants into unknowingly transporting the cash. The prosecution simply argued, in response to the claims that a third party was responsible, that Defendants knew the third party. [W]here the defendant opens the door to an argument, it is `fair advocacy' for the prosecution to enter. United States v. Falsia, 724 F.2d 1339, 1342 (9th Cir.1983). There was no error.