Opinion ID: 1399686
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor's Cross-Examination of Agent Ramirez

Text: Lastly, Two Elk sees reversible error in the prosecutor's questioning of Agent Ramirez, a defense witness. Specifically, the prosecutor asked, and Agent Ramirez answered, two questions that Two Elk regards as impermissible vouching: Q [Prosecutor]: Have any charges been brought against [Ben Murphy, Sr.] with respect to this matter that you are aware of? A [Agent Ramirez]: No, sir. Q [Prosecutor]: Is that a decision made by the U.S. Attorney's office? A [Agent Ramirez]: Yes, it is. Two Elk concedes that he failed to object to this line of questioning during the trial. Thus, we review for plain error. Hyles, 521 F.3d at 958. Two Elk asserts that this line of questioning amounted to misconduct because the prosecutor thereby (1) induce[d] the jury to trust the Government's judgment rather than its own view of the evidence, and (2) implied that the prosecutor knew something that the jury did not about whether Ben Sr. was a possible perpetrator. Improper vouching may occur when the government ... refers to facts outside the record or implies that the veracity of a witness is supported by outside facts that are unavailable to the jury.... United States v. Santana, 150 F.3d 860, 863 (8th Cir.1998). Had this testimony been properly challenged, it may very well have been excluded. The prosecutor's questioning tacitly informed the jury that the U.S. Attorney's Office had opted not to charge Ben Sr., focusing instead on the defendant. Of course, the details of the government's investigation of Ben Sr. were not in evidence. The prosecutor thereby intimated that the government had access to knowledge about the case to which the jury was not privy. Nonetheless, Two Elk must still show[] prejudicethat is, ... a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different absent the alleged error. United States v. Abdullahi, 520 F.3d 890, 896 (8th Cir.2008) (quotation omitted). At the outset, we note that Two Elk's counsel actually asked Agent Mackey similar questions on cross-examination well before Agent Ramirez testified. Specifically, she queried whether anyone else [was] ever arrested for this crime? and whether anyone else [was] ever charged in any way for this crime? Agent Mackey responded, no. The defense thereby broached the topic and lessened the impact of Agent Ramirez's testimony. As we have explained above, the government had a strong case against Two Elk. The government adduced Two Elk's taped confession and other evidence that dovetailed with the details of Two Elk's confession. While Two Elk makes much of Ben Sr.'s checkered past, the prosecution's evidence against Two Elk was far more substantial than Two Elk's insinuations about Ben Sr. And Two Elk was able to introduce amplealbeit entirely speculativeevidence pinning Ben Sr. as a potential suspect. [16] Indeed, Two Elk had already confessed to the crime once and offered details about his conduct. Two Elk has not borne his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the court's error in allowing this line of questioning was prejudicial.