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

Heading: Allegations regarding shifting and reducing the burden of proof

Text: Henry further alleges that the prosecutor shifted and reduced the burden of proof during closing argument. Specifically, Henry points to the following statement by the prosecutor: Ladies and gentlemen, I guess that sort of gets back to the whole point that I said in opening statement ... listen to the testimony of the witnesses, consider how it came in, and consider if there is any way that the defense's theory could hold any water. Henry claims that the statement shifted the burden of proof to him because it purportedly tells the jury that Henry is required to present evidence and a theory of innocence, and improperly tells the jury to weigh competing theories. Nothing in the prosecutor's remarks, however, suggested that Henry had the burden to prove that he was innocent. In this circuit, [i]f a defendant testifies..., a prosecutor may attack his credibility to the same extent as any other witness, United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir.1999), so long as the commentary is supported by reasonable inferences from the record and is not based solely on the prosecutor's personal opinion. Greer v. Mitchell, 264 F.3d 663, 683 (6th Cir.2001). At trial, Henry denied knowing many of his alleged coconspirators, asserted that he had no involvement in the drug conspiracy, and attacked the credibility of the government's witnesses. This allowed the government to contrast Henry's testimony with that of the numerous witnesses who testified against him and to ask the jury to decide who they believed. The district court also clearly and properly instructed the jury that the government bore the burden of establishing Henry's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Henry's argument that this statement by the prosecutor shifted and reduced the burden of proof is therefore without merit.