Opinion ID: 1195797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegations of improper vouching for witness credibility

Text: Henry next complains of improper vouching by the prosecutor. Improper vouching occurs when a prosecutor either (1) bluntly states a personal belief in a witness's credibility, thereby placing the prestige of the office of the United States Attorney behind that witness, or (2) implies that the witness's testimony is corroborated by evidence known to the government but not known to the jury. United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 550-51 (6th Cir.1999). Henry argues that the prosecutor engaged in both forms of improper vouching with regard to Kah, as well as with Henry's coconspirators. In his closing argument, the prosecutor noted that Kah had not been charged with any crime, and that she had relocated to Canadawhere she was a citizenand couldn't be forced to come back to the United States to testify. The prosecutor reminded the jury that Kah said she wouldn't really feel right until she ... came over and told the truth. He asserted that Kah had nothing to lose if she chose not to testify about Henry receiving money or personally delivering concert speakers, and then went on to say: Her testimony, I submit, when you discuss that, is highly credible testimony, and her testimony alone when you compare it with the Defendant's absolutely contradictory testimony on the same point, is enough to convict the Defendant. Henry first argues that it was improper for the prosecutor to assert that Kah could not be compelled to testify because there was no evidence in the record on that point. He then asserts that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Kah's credibility by suggesting that she was a disinterested volunteer witness who could not have been compelled to appear in court, that she was more likely to be truthful because the government had nothing to offer her, and that she was motivated by a desire to tell the truth. Henry claims that the prosecutor improperly argued that Kah was a disinterested witness despite the fact that the government could have charged her as a coconspirator but did not, and despite the fact that Kah's boyfriend, Yoakum, was allowed to plead guilty to money-laundering charges rather than drug-trafficking charges. We conclude that these arguments are without merit. At trial, Kah made clear that she came to the United States voluntarily to testify. When asked if, as a Canadian citizen living in Canada, the United States government could have forced her to come to the United States to testify, she answered no, that the government could not do so. Kah also asserted that she was testifying because she wanted this chapter of [her] life to be closed and stated that, unless I do the right thing and testify, it is never going to be closed. The prosecutor therefore did not do anything improper by arguing that Kah's presence at the trial was voluntary. Nor did the prosecutor act improperly by explaining that the absence of a plea agreement with the government suggested that Kah lacked a reason to lie. Evidence in the record supports the prosecutor's assertions that Kah had no agreement with the government regarding her testimony. Furthermore, the prosecutor had some leeway to discuss Kah's motivation for testifying because Henry's counsel had attacked her credibility during the defense's closing argument. Although [a] government attorney has a duty not to express a personal opinion or belief regarding the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence, the government may attempt to explain why, based on the facts, that witness's testimony is honest after the same has been attacked by the defense. United States v. Hurst, 951 F.2d 1490, 1502 (6th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 8, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985)). Henry's counsel repeatedly attacked the credibility of the government's witnesses, arguing that they could not be trusted because their testimony was bought and paid for and that every critical witness in this case called by the prosecution is a criminal seeking leniency. Kah's credibility was specifically attacked when defense counsel referred to the $1,500 that Kah had received from the government, and suggested that she was unreliable because she had been paid. Because Henry attacked Kah's credibility on the ground that she had received a benefit from the government, the prosecutor was entitled to explain that, although Kah received money for relocating to Canada, she had no agreement affording her any benefit for testifying at Henry's trial. Characterizing Kah as a witness who did not stand to gain anything from testifying was therefore not misleading. The prosecutor's statement that Kah had provided highly credible testimony, however, was problematic. In United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.1999), this court explained that blunt comments of personal belief constitute improper vouching. Id. at 550; see also United States v. Bess, 593 F.2d 749, 756 (6th Cir.1979) (explaining that statements of clear personal belief are improper even when based on testimony advanced at trial, and are unequivocally condemned); United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that improper vouching occurred when the prosecutor introduced his own opinion about credibility through comments including I think he [the witness] was candid. I think he was honest.). An improper statement of personal belief, however, is not per se reversible error. Bess, 593 F.2d at 754-56. The court must find that the improper statement was flagrant enough to warrant reversal. Francis, 170 F.3d at 549. Here, the isolated improper vouching statement, whether accidental or deliberate, was not likely to mislead the jury or prejudice Henry. Kah's testimony was only a small part of the evidence that the jury heard relating to Henry's involvement in the conspiracy. Her knowledge of the workings of the conspiracy was limited. We therefore conclude that the improper statement was not flagrant and does not reach the level of reversible error. And because the error was not flagrant even under de novo review, the vouching statement is clearly not ground for reversal under the plain-error standard applicable here. See Gardiner, 463 F.3d at 459. The remainder of Henry's vouching allegations stem from the prosecutor's references to the plea agreements and reduced sentences received by coconspirators Gatlin, Jackson, McMullan, Minniefield, and Soto. During closing argument, the prosecutor asked the jury to consider whether the plea agreements would motivate the witnesses to lie, as suggested by the defense, or rather to tell the truth because false testimony would cause the witnesses to forfeit their plea agreements. In rebuttal argument, the prosecutor clarified that only after the interviews did he and the FBI agent who interviewed many of the coconspirators discuss[] and decide[] what if anything should be offered as a sentence reduction to each witness. Henry asserts that these comments improperly expressed the prosecutor's personal belief in each witness's absolute and relative credibility. A prosecutor may refer to the plea agreement of a testifying witness ... [,] elicit testimony about its terms, attack the credibility of the witness because of it and even refer to the plea agreement of a government witness in an attempt to deflect defense counsel's use of the agreement to attack the witness's credibility. Francis, 170 F.3d at 550. But because a prosecutor might imply, either intentionally or inadvertently, that the prosecutor is in a special position to ascertain whether the witness was, in fact, testifying truthfully, impropriety emerges where a prosecutor explains to the jury that the prosecutor will make a recommendation to the witness's sentencing court whether the terms of the plea agreement have been adhered to. Id. In Henry's case, the government never suggested to the jury that, if it deemed the testimony of Henry's coconspirators to be truthful, it would make a recommendation as to their sentencing. The prosecutor instead noted that plea agreements are structured such that witnesses promise to tell the truth and stand to lose any possible benefit if their testimony is later proven to be false. This argument was a proper response to defense counsel's contention that the government's witnesses were lying in order to receive sentence reductions. Under the invited response rule, a reviewing court must not only weigh the impact of the prosecutor's remarks, but must also take into account defense counsel's opening salvo. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11-12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). [I]f the prosecutor's remarks were `invited,' and did no more than respond substantially in order to `right the scale,' such comments would not warrant reversing a conviction. Id. at 12-13, 105 S.Ct. 1038. Henry's counsel repeatedly attacked the credibility of the government's witnesses during the trial and in closing argument, suggesting that the plea agreements and sentence reductions were a quid pro quo for manufactured testimony. The prosecutor's response was reasonable in light of the attacks, explaining that the government interviewed the coconspirators to learn what they knew well before making any decision to offer them a plea agreement or to reduce their sentences because of their testimony in Henry's case. Because a prosecutor is entitled to explain the efforts made to ensure truthful testimony by a witness whose credibility has been attacked, the prosecutor's statement did not constitute improper vouching. See United States v. Hurst, 951 F.2d 1490, 1502 (6th Cir.1991) (concluding that, in response to attacks on the credibility of a government witness, the prosecutor was entitled to explain his efforts to ensure full and honest disclosure). Henry properly notes, however, that the prosecutor's closing argument incorrectly claimed that the witnesses understood the terms of their plea agreement before they provided statements to the FBI agent assigned to the investigation. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that any of the coconspirators who testified at Henry's trial had reviewed their plea agreements before talking with the agent for the first time. In fact, both parties acknowledged that the coconspirators did not receive their plea agreements until months or even years after their interviews. Henry's argument about this alleged error loses its persuasiveness when we examine the arguments in context. Even if the coconspirators did not understand the risks associated with lying at the time they first spoke with the FBI agent, they certainly had evaluated the consequences of such an action prior to the time they signed their plea agreements. Any confusion about the timing of the coconspirators' interviews and the signing of their plea agreements was remedied by comments made by the prosecutor in his rebuttal. There, the prosecutor made clear that the government offered agreements to the coconspirators in exchange for their testimony only after they had given their interviews. Furthermore, the coconspirators discussed the dates of their arrests, debriefings with the FBI agent, and the content of their plea agreements at trial. The plea agreements themselves were also all entered into evidence. When viewed in the context of the prosecutor's overall argument and the evidence before the jury, the statement about the witnesses understanding their plea agreements was not improper.