Opinion ID: 1195797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegations regarding misstatements of the evidence

Text: Henry's first contention is that his conviction should be set aside because the prosecutor misstated the evidence during closing and rebuttal arguments. Specifically, Henry alleges that the prosecutor misrepresented the testimony of government witnesses Kah, Jackson, and McMullan, as well as Henry's own testimony. In his closing argument, the prosecutor said that Kah told you about the apartment that was rented for counting money, and that Kah had testified that Henry had decided to personally deliver that speaker to Big Al's house at three or four... in the morning. Henry asserts that Kah did not testify as to why the apartment was rented, and did not say that Henry alone decided to deliver two speakers to Big Al's house. Instead, Kah had said that Henry and Yoakum jointly agreed to deliver the speakers to the residence. Kah did testify at trial that she often saw thousands and thousands of dollars at the apartment and that money was regularly counted there. The prosecutor's characterization that the apartment was rented for the purpose of counting money was therefore not totally devoid of factual support in the record. Furthermore, the fact that money was counted at the apartment was far more significant than whether the apartment was rented solely for that purpose. Henry's argument about the delivery of the two speakers is likewise without merit. No relevant distinction can be drawn between Kah's statement that Henry and Yoakum together decided to deliver the speakers to Big Al and the prosecutor's statement implying that Henry alone decided to do so. Kah clearly testified that she heard Henry say that he needed to deliver two speakers to Big Al's house and that she witnessed the speakers being delivered there that night. The prosecutor's references to Kah's testimony were therefore not improper. Henry next alleges that the prosecutor mischaracterized Jackson's testimony by stating that Henry had told Jackson that he needed a gun for Red, one of the coconspirators, and by saying that Jackson had given Henry a free phone. Specifically, Henry asserts that he asked Jackson only to loan a gun to Red, and that he had testified that he bought the phone and paid the monthly charges. Jackson, however, testified at trial that Henry had asked him to provide a gun to the coconspirator in question. He also said that he told Henry that he would provide the extra handgun to the coconspirator in order to secure the bus. And although Henry testified at one point during the trial that he paid for the phone that Jackson provided him, Henry had previously said that Jackson gave him a phone after he complained to Jackson about his expensive cell-phone bills. The prosecutor's statements relating to the gun and the phone were therefore supported by the evidence and provide no basis for the claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Henry further asserts that the prosecutor's statement that McMullan did not know whether or not Cesar Soto is cooperating, doesn't know whether Cesar Soto has been indicted, [and] doesn't have any idea what Cesar has said was a mischaracterization of McMullan's testimony. McMullan testified, however, that from the time that he was arrested in February 2001 until Henry's trial, he had no contact with anyone involved in the conspiracy, including Soto. The prosecutor therefore did not mischaracterize McMullan's testimony. Henry's final evidentiary argument is that the prosecutor mischaracterized the amount of cocaine that was in each concert speaker. The transcript of the prosecutor's closing argument includes the following statement made to the jury: We know that there were 250 kilograms per speaker. No evidence from the record supports that number. The transcript, however, contains several typographical errors, and the government suggests that the prosecutor actually said that there were 50 kilograms of cocaine per speaker, not 250 kilograms. At the time of the disputed statement, the prosecutor was discussing the special verdict form that required the jury to determine whether 150 kilograms or more of cocaine was at issue in Henry's case. The prosecutor stated: We know that there were [some number, either 50 or 250] kilograms per speaker, and a minimum of two speakers, sometimes three speakers on each trip. We know that three speakers on the last trip dealt with 150 kilograms. Then, after discussing one speaker, the prosecutor referenced two additional speakers that had been found during the February 15, 2000 seizures and said that is another 100 kilograms right there. An examination of the entirety of the prosecutor's statements about the quantity of cocaine makes clear that the prosecutor was discussing a total of 150 kilograms of cocaine distributed among three speakers in quantities of 50 kilograms each. The alleged error was therefore either typographical or was isolated and unintentional, and was further limited by the fact that the special-verdict form the jury received clarified that the jury was being asked to determine if 150 kilograms or more were involved in Henry's case. In any event, after considering the context in which the alleged error was made, we conclude that the purported misstatement could not have prejudiced Henry or misled the jury. And even if the prosecutor did err, the error was unintentional and isolated and does not warrant reversal under the plain-error standard of review.