Opinion ID: 3060223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation of Comment on Failure to Call Holt

Text: We review the district court’s “broad discretion in the management of the trial” for “a clear showing of abuse.” United States v. Hilliard, 752 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Gabay, 923 F.2d 1536, 1541 (11th Cir. 1991) (“A trial court has broad discretion in handling a trial and an appellate court will not intervene absent a clear showing of abuse.”). Thus, “the district court will not be reversed for limiting summation as long as the defendant ha[d] the opportunity to make all legally tenable arguments that are supported by the facts of the case.” United States v. Gaines, 690 F.2d 849, 858 (11th Cir. 1982). Walcott argues that, in closing argument, he should have been allowed to explicitly ask the jury to infer that Holt’s testimony would have been damaging to 12 the government and favorable to the defense. What Walcott wanted to argue in closing is the same as his proposed “missing witness” jury instruction. Because there is no evidence in this record that Holt’s testimony would have been damaging to the government or favorable to Walcott, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting Walcott’s closing argument. Moreover, Walcott was allowed to make the legal arguments supported by the facts in the case. The district court allowed him to “argue to this jury where is Mr. Holt, why wasn’t he called by the Government, and [the district court is] not going to hear from the Government saying, well, why didn’t [Walcott] call [Holt].” In addition, at numerous points in his closing argument, Walcott took the opportunity to comment on the government’s failure to call Holt, for instance by highlighting Holt’s plea agreement and explicitly asking, “So, why didn’t the Government call Pasquale Holt to testify?” This question, among other arguments Walcott advanced in his closing argument, allowed the jury to draw its own negative inference against the government as to what Holt’s testimony might have been. Thus, the district court’s limitations on closing argument did not prevent Walcott from making “all legally tenable arguments,” and in fact allowed him to repeatedly question why the government failed to call Holt to testify. Gaines, 690 F.2d at 858. We find no basis in the record to determine that the district court 13 abused its discretion in limiting what Walcott could say in his closing argument regarding Holt’s failure to testify.