Opinion ID: 667475
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: 29 Except as otherwise noted, the defendant did not object to any of the following incidents. 30 (1) 31 During voir dire, the prosecutor made the following comment: 32 As jurors, those of you who are chosen to serve as jurors, you will represent the entire community. That is all of southeast Tennessee, and, in fact, you'll be representing all of the United States as jurors. In doing so, we ask you to see that our laws are enforced fairly and equally, and to set aside any passions, any prejudices and any sympathies and decide this case on the law and the facts that are presented to you in this case. 33 McDowell argues that this statement somehow imposes on the jurors some greater responsibility than to be the trier of fact. He does not elaborate. 34 This appears to be an accurate statement of the law. 35 (2) 36 McDowell claims that the government attorney impermissibly emphasized McDowell's prior convictions during closing arguments. He additionally argues that the government made an improper appeal to the juror's concern about drug trafficking. McDowell also claims that the government's attorney improperly vouched for his witness. 37 The portion of the closing statement in question was as follows: 38 The defendant in previous sworn testimony has called these officers liars. And I am particularly disturbed about that in this case, because Kemonti McDowell, and if you want to, please, I would encourage you to look through his prior convictions, has twelve prior felony convictions. 39 Okay. These officers go out here on a daily basis and they risk their lives for us going in these crack houses to deal with people like Kemonti McDowell. He has the gall to come in here and tell you they're liars, okay? He's just been out of the penitentiary after twelve felony convictions and he's going to come in here and tell us that they're liars. Liars. 40 First, regarding the prior convictions, McDowell elected to testify during trial and claimed that he never possessed the drugs. Because his credibility was in issue (he also claimed he had been convicted only once), the government introduced evidence of McDowell's prior convictions. McDowell also stated during his testimony that one of the testifying officers was a liar. 41 The context of the statements quoted above reveals that the government was visiting the issue of credibility that had been raised at trial. The reference to the prior convictions was not misconduct. 42 Second, appeals to the community's sense of dangers of drug trafficking are not improper. McDowell does not elaborate as to how this was prejudicial. It is not improper to appeal to law and order. The context of the statements does not indicate that they would likely tend to inflame the jury. 43 Third, as to improper vouching, the record does not disclose that the prosecutor offered his personal opinion as to the government's witnesses' trustworthiness. 44 There was an instance where the prosecutor stated, I stand on my oath. That's not--my job is not to lead you down some path. However, this statement was in response to defense counsel's argument that the government attorney was attempting to lead the jury down some path; it was not an effort to personally vouch for a witness. A prosecutor may properly respond to defense arguments which attack his motivation and credibility. United States v. Castro, 908 F.2d 85 (6th Cir.1990). 45 There was also an instance where the prosecutor responded to an argument that a police officer had fabricated his story. The defense suggested this was so because the officer had to review his notes during trial. The prosecutor stated that the officer was a professional trying to do his job and nothing could be insinuated from his refreshing his recollection during trial. 46 (3) 47 During rebuttal argument the following statement and colloquy occurred. 48 MR. COOK: Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen, I just want to--Mr. Tidwell began by telling you that this was an extremely important day for Kemonti McDowell. Well, this is a very important day for the United States, too, because Mr. McDowell has committed one of the most serious crimes facing our nation. 49 Mr. Tidwell is surely right when he says to you that there are plenty of good people who live in this area, because there are. They should not have to tolerate the likes of Kemonti McDowell overrunning their community. There are people held hostage down in that area. Old people, old people, young people, kids who can't live in their own homes. 50 MR. TIDWELL: I'm going to object to this as being outside the record. 51 THE COURT: Yeah, it's outside the record. Sustained. 52 In all of the incidents outlined in (1), (2), and (3) above, we find no prosecutorial misconduct and certainly nothing that even arguably constitutes plain error. 53 (4) 54 McDowell argues that the prosecutor compounded the alleged misconduct by eliciting impermissible comment from the arresting officer regarding McDowell's failure to deny the drugs were his after they were found. He cites Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). 55 A Doyle situation may occur at trial after an accused offers an explanation as to certain events or actions taken. The violation occurs when an officer comments on the accused's silence or failure to offer an explanation at the scene after a Miranda warning has been given. It is inherently unfair to tell a suspect that he has a right to remain silent and then use the silence to impeach an explanation that he offers at trial. 56 There was no Doyle violation here because McDowell was not told that he had the right to remain silent when the officer discovered the crack cocaine in his pocket and then commented that he supposed that the crack cocaine was not his. Additionally, the testimony regarding McDowell's silence was not used to impeach an explanation for why the crack cocaine was in his pocket and under his leg.