Opinion ID: 691027
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument

Text: 35 Janus argues that certain remarks of the prosecutor during closing argument were so prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial. During the rebuttal phase of closing argument the prosecution said to the jury: Make no mistake about the intent of Mr. Janus. Make no mistake. This [sic] items are evil from their conception and they were going to be used for an evil purpose. R.Vol. 8 at 985. Janus objected, requesting that the jury be instructed to disregard the defamatory language about things being evil. Id. The district judge, in overruling the objection, stated: It's a legitimate argument.... I think [the prosecution] is using [evil] interchangeably for the word illegal as I understand it. Id. On appeal Janus claims that the prosecution's comment was highly prejudicial and caused incurable damage. 36 We agree with the district court that the prosecutor's comment was not improper in context. The remark on its face was fair argument. Furthermore, the prosecutor's comment might be characterized as invited comment. In its closing argument, as well as throughout trial, defense counsel maintained that Janus was unaware the paraphernalia he was selling was illegal. See, e.g., R.Vol. 8 at 966. The prosecution's comment on rebuttal, therefore, appears to have been an attempt to address one of the main factual issues in the case--that Janus knew he was selling drug paraphernalia. We have repeatedly recognized that considerable latitude is given the prosecutor in closing argument in replying to an argument raised by defense counsel's closing statement. United States v. Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382, 1401 (10th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Foreman v. United States, 474 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 579, 88 L.Ed.2d 561 (1985); United States v. Dickey, 736 F.2d 571, 596 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom. Beasley v. United States, 469 U.S. 1188, 105 S.Ct. 957, 83 L.Ed.2d 964 (1985). 37 Assuming arguendo that the comment was improper either intrinsically or as invited comment, it did not deprive Janus of a fair trial because it was harmless. The comment was singular and isolated. See United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486, 1491 (10th Cir.1991); United States v. Record, 873 F.2d 1363, 1376 (10th Cir.1989). And the record consists of ample evidence, independent of the alleged misconduct, which supports the jury's verdict. The harmlessness was further bolstered by the trial court's instruction to the jury that statements and arguments by the attorneys were not evidence and were not to be considered in rendering a verdict. R. Vol. 8 at 924; see Pena, 930 F.2d at 1491.