Opinion ID: 2723405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The government’s “burden-shifting” remarks

Text: Next, Patela argues that the District Court erred by failing to grant a mistrial to remedy any prejudicial effect of certain remarks made by the prosecutor during rebuttal 6 summation. As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree about whether Patela properly raised this issue before the District Court and, consequently, whether we must review for plain error. The confusion traces back to defense counsel’s objection to the government’s summation, which addressed the issue of a mistrial in noncommittal language: “I could be asking for a mistrial . . . and maybe I should have.” App’x 1037. We will assume without deciding that Patela did move for a mistrial and, thus, that we review the District Court’s denial for abuse of discretion. Applying that standard, we conclude that the District Court acted within its discretion when it denied a mistrial and responded with a curative jury instruction instead. To determine whether the District Court erred by failing to grant a mistrial, we look to “the scope of the improper comments in the overall trial context, the effect of any curative instructions given, and the strength of the evidence against the defendant.” United States v. Mastrangelo, 172 F.3d 288, 297 (3d Cir. 1999). “We review a district court’s decision not to grant a mistrial on the grounds that the prosecutor made improper remarks in closing argument for abuse of discretion, and, if error is found, we apply harmless error analysis.” United States v. Molina-Guevara, 96 F.3d 698, 703 (3d Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). The prosecutor made the first challenged remark in response to defense counsel’s summation argument that Patela’s 2007 residential mortgage fraud was irrelevant to the charges. He said, “So what does the defendant have to say about that?” App’x 1003. Taken out of context, the question might suggest that Patela owed the jury a response. The District Court, however, determined that the statement was made “in the context of 7 fair rebuttal.” App’x 1034. We agree. The prosecutor’s remark introduce his arguments about why the defense’s theory of innocent mistake could not be credited. App’x 1003. The second challenged remark had a similar purpose. The prosecutor said: The defendant was under oath during that [JVI Realty] bankruptcy proceeding. Did he mention Jose Dominguez at all? Did he mention him when he said that he took the second mortgage? Of course not. And that’s supposed to be evidence of the defendant’s innocence. Right? That years later in 2009, JVI plummets, falls apart, he files for bankruptcy, and because he identified the prohibited second mortgage on the petition, that that proves that he didn’t know anything was wrong with it[?] App’x 1004 (emphasis added). This statement followed defense counsel’s summation, during which she emphasized the fact that Patela was forthcoming about his second mortgage on the apartment buildings during the 2009 bankruptcy proceedings. She said: “If he committed a fraud, and he knew that he couldn’t let anyone know because the second mortgage was evidence of that fraud, why would he trade $300,000 to shed light on that fraud?” App’x 987. In other words, if Patela were guilty of fraud, he would not have revealed the unauthorized second mortgage because that violation is part of the fraudulent scheme. We construe the prosecutor’s remarks to address this assertion and not to imply that Patela had a burden to prove his innocence. In any event, the District Court addressed a jury instruction to remedy any confusion generated by the exchange: I want to note for you that during the government’s rebuttal, the government questioned whether certain evidence highlighted by the defense was, ‘supposed to be evidence of the defendant’s innocence.’ This statement should not be taken by you to suggest that the defendant has any burden to prove his innocence. As I have said, the burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt stays with the government throughout trial. 8 App’x 1065. The instruction emphasized that the burden of proof remained on the prosecution, not Patela, therefore eradicating any confusion on the matter. Considering the context of the remarks, the curative instruction, and the overall strength of the evidence tending toward Patela’s conviction, the District Court acted within its discretion when it rejected the mistrial motion.