Opinion ID: 5754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Ask Specific Question

Text: Murphy contends that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof when it commented on defense counsel's failure to ask certain witness[es] whether they believed the bank surveillance photographs depicted [him] when those witnesses were equally available to the prosecution.1 However, he cites no persuasive authority. Counsel is accorded wide latitude during closing argument, and this court gives deference to a district court's determination regarding whether those arguments are prejudicial and/or inflammatory. United States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 512, 518 (5th 1 In closing argument, defense counsel asked the jury to compare Murphy, as he looked in the courtroom, to bank surveillance pictures which the prosecutor claimed were of Murphy. He argued that the prosecutor's witnesses who had identified Murphy during the trial should not be believed. Defense counsel, however, did not ask Murphy's mother, sister, or brother-in-law to try and identify Murphy from the bank surveillance pictures. 6 Cir. 1987). The district court overruled defense counsel's objections to the prosecution's remarks. That determination is entitled to deference. Williams, 822 F.2d at 518. Further, defense counsel invited the response when he challenged the jury to compare Murphy, as he looked in the courtroom, to the photographs. He also stated that the photographs did not depict Murphy. The prosecution's remarks fall within the ambit of the wide latitude accorded counsel in closing argument. Id.