Opinion ID: 2993622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Government’s Statements about Flores

Text: Because Flores testified, the prosecutor’s comments on her demeanor were permissible.18 See Allen v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 997 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The prosecutor’s comments regarding [the defendant’s] courtroom demeanor were permissible because [the defendant] chose to testify.”); 18 In closing, the prosecutor said to the jury: “You saw her sitting there the entire trial. Her hands weren’t shaking while she was there.” UNITED STATES V. FLORES 23 United States v. Schuler, 813 F.2d 978, 981 n.3 (9th Cir. 1987). Flores also argues that the government impermissibly called Flores a drug smuggler, a liar, and “not law abiding.” However, when the prosecutor called Flores a drug smuggler and a liar, she was not making impermissible propensity arguments. Instead, she was arguing that when Flores admitted to smuggling drugs on June 21, 2012, she admitted to the instant offense and that she was lying when she claimed she only took drugs to Mexico. Such statements are permissible to the extent that they were not misstatements of fact or law. See Molina, 934 F.2d at 1445 (holding that the prosecution may call the defendant a liar if that is one of the inferences supported by the evidence); Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d at 1409 (holding that the prosecution may ask the jury to draw reasonable inferences); Necoechea, 986 F.2d at 1282 (noting that the government may argue that a defendant charged with drug dealing is a “dope dealer”). And the prosecutor’s assertion that Flores was not lawabiding was a permissible rebuttal to Flores’s closing argument. Flores’s attorney attempted to explain why Flores’s effort to delete her Facebook messages was not necessarily a sign of guilt. Defense counsel told the jury a childhood story in which he attempted to hide evidence potentially suggesting that he cheated on a test even though he had not actually cheated. The prosecutor’s argument that Flores was not law-abiding was offered to distinguish the defense attorney’s situation from Flores’s. Flores admitted that she asked Manuel to delete content because she feared there was a picture of her smoking marijuana. While the evidence Flores’s attorney destroyed as a child was entirely innocent (and might have exonerated him), the evidence 24 UNITED STATES V. FLORES Flores asked her cousin to destroy was undoubtedly indicative of criminal activity—the only question was which crime Flores was trying to cover up, simple possession, exportation, or importation. The government merely pointed out that, unlike her attorney, Flores was trying to hide evidence of wrongdoing. Placed in this context, the argument was proper rebuttal.