Opinion ID: 1191667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Error in Closing Argument

Text: Hinkson contends the district court erred by failing to order a new trial sua sponte after the government's closing argument because the prosecutor, knowing that Swisher likely was not a combat veteran, argued to the jury that Swisher told Hinkson he was a combat veteran, and that is why Hinkson solicited Swisher to murder Cook, Hines, and Lodge. Review is for plain error because Hinkson failed to object below. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). A plain error is (1) an error (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir.2009). Hinkson's contention lacks merit. The government's only references to Swisher's military background in its closing argument were to point out that Swisher had told Hinkson he was a combat veteran not that Swisher necessarily was one. Even if Swisher had never served in the military at all, it was enough that the jury found Hinkson believed he did. The government did not argue in closing that Swisher should be deemed more credible or believable on account of his purported military heroism, or that he was more likely to be a murderer-for-hire because of his military record. Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err by failing to order a new trial sua sponte after the government's closing argument.