Opinion ID: 1035557
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenge IV

Text: Finally, the prosecutor stated the following during the opening phase of closing argument: “The defense is going to get up here. They’re going to attack me. They’re going to attack the agents. They’re going to attack the confidential sources. And they’re going to attack the cooperating defendants, ladies and gentlemen. . . .” No defendant contemporaneously objected to this statement. We review any challenges to it for plain error only. Gracia, 522 F.3d at 600 n.2. Salas and the other Appellants presently contend that the prosecutor’s statement amounted to an improper attack on the integrity of the various defense counsel. The government makes the argument that the prosecutor anticipated attacks by defense counsel and, therefore, acted preemptively. We need not decide whether the statement was improper because, under our precedent, the statement—even if improper—would not have caused the defendants substantial prejudice. In Gallardo-Trapero, we were confronted with a prosecutor’s improper attempt “to bolster [her] credibility . . . and that of the DEA agents who testified by invoking the authority of the United States and cloaking [her argument and the agents’ testimony] in the mantle of the federal government.” 185 F.3d at 319. Specifically, the prosecutor had stated: “I repeat, do you think that agents for the federal government and a prosecutor for the federal government, for the 34 Case: 11-41376 Document: 00512323905 Page: 35 Date Filed: 07/29/2013 Nos. 11-41376 c/w 11-41392 United States of America, are going to . . . get on the witness stand and commit perjury and risk their career[s]. It’s not going to happen, ladies and gentlemen.” Id.; see also id. n.5 (providing a larger excerpt from the trial transcript). We found the prosecutor’s remarks to have been improper, explaining that “‘it is particularly improper, indeed, pernicious, for a prosecutor to seek to invoke [her] personal status as the government’s attorney or the sanction of the government itself as a basis for convicting a criminal defendant.’” See id. at 31920 & n.6 (alteration added) (quoting United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)). Nonetheless, we concluded that the prosecutor’s remarks had not prejudiced the defendants’ substantial rights. See id. at 321. Here, unlike in Gallardo-Trapero, Salas and the other Appellants had made no contemporaneous objection to the prosecutor’s remarks. Also, counsel has pointed to no on-point authority dictating that the remarks were improper. This is rightly so since chiding the zealousness of defense counsel’s presentation, even if improper, is a sin of lesser magnitude than suggesting that a witness for the prosecution be believed simply because he or she is a federal agent. In contrast to the circumstances in Gallardo-Trapero, where there was not reversible prejudice, this is an easier case. We therefore reject this challenge.