Opinion ID: 173269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reference to Lopez-Medina's Immigration Status

Text: On cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned Lopez-Medina about his immigration status: Q. How many years have you been here in the United States? A. Like 13 or 14 years. Q. You are illegally here, aren't you? A. Oh, yes. Q. Have you been breaking the law for 13 or 14 years? A. Well, I believe so. (R. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 181 at 31.) In closing, the prosecutor argued: Now defense counsel tried to show him as a nice person, as a person that was law abiding and never committed crime. He's here illegally. Been so for 13 years. He's living the lie. (R. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 181 at 56.) Lopez-Medina contends this constitutes prosecutorial misconduct. The government argues Lopez-Medina opened the door for inquiry about his illegal status by testifying about his clean record. (Appellee's Br. at 62.) We agree with the government. Lopez-Medina's immigration status is not relevant to whether he committed the crime of possession with intent to distribute but it does counter his suggestion he was a law-abiding citizen wrongly accused of his half-brother's criminal acts. Lopez-Medina does not contend the government's statement misrepresented either the facts or the law. And the jury was admonished: You are here to decide whether the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The defendant is not on trial for any act, conduct, or offense not alleged in the indictment. (R. Supp. Vol. I, Doc. 138 at 36.) We see no error.