Opinion ID: 674597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: 109 Minh Do's other claims of prosecutorial misconduct include the claim that the government's summation improperly vouched for the credibility of its witnesses and improperly commented on the failure of the defense to cross-examine the translator of the tape recordings. These contentions do not warrant extended discussion. 110 A prosecutor may not properly vouch for the credibility of a witness. However, the government is allowed to respond to an argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity of its case, see, e.g., United States v. Rivera, 22 F.3d 430, 438 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 60-61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 134, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983), and when the defense counsel have attacked the prosecutor's credibility or the credibility of the government agents, the prosecutor is entitled to reply with 'rebutting language suitable to the occasion,'  United States v. Praetorius, 622 F.2d 1054, 1060-61 (2d Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. LaSorsa, 480 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 162, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). 111 Here, the integrity of the prosecutors had repeatedly been impugned. For example, Minh Do's counsel argued, The Government wants an interpreter who will take suggestions from Tinh Ngo. The Government wants someone who will say they're willing to guess at what sounds mean and make sense out of things that they can't make sense out of, someone who will agree that if you say it in black and white on this transcript it's got to be so or at least it's possible, and they found someone who will do that. (Tr. 7273.) Lan Tran's counsel argued, Does this case help the careers of these agents and detectives.... That's what they want, the publicity. (Tr. 7197-98.) 112 In response, AUSA Patricia Pileggi, in the government's rebuttal summation, made the statements challenged here: 113 What do you think [AUSA] Vinegrad is interested in? Do you think that he is interested in a fabricated or a shaded version of events? 114 Do you think that he's interested in slanting things before you? 115 (Tr. 7611.) In light of defendants' attacks, we conclude that this relatively mild response was not improper. 116 Nor is there merit in Minh Do's challenge to the AUSA's statement that none of the defendants had cross-examined the government's translator as to the accuracy of the tapes. An observation in summation that evidence adduced by the Government was not confronted on cross-examination is entirely proper. United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 884 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 246 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 273, 112 L.Ed.2d 229 (1990); United States v. Walker, 835 F.2d 983, 989 (2d Cir.1987). Accordingly, the government's comments were not inappropriate. 117 We are unpersuaded by Minh Do's additional argument that the government's comment was particularly unfair to him because one conversation with Tinh Ngo, discussed in Part II.B.1. above, had not been included in the book of final tape translations prior to trial. Minh Do apparently made no effort to have the translator recalled for cross-examination; indeed, he did not even accept the court's offer of extra time to prepare for cross-examination of Tinh Ngo on that conversation.