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

Heading: Shifting and Undermining the Burden of Proof

Text: Flores next contends that the government improperly (1) shifted the burden of proof by pointing out that she failed to produce evidence to corroborate her story about Juan the mechanic and (2) undermined the burden of proof by asking the jury to evaluate the government’s “very reasonable” story and Flores’s “preposterous” story “in the same way.” See United States v. Evanston, 651 F.3d 1080, 1091–92 (9th Cir. 22 UNITED STATES V. FLORES 2011) (“It is beyond comment that the government bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.”). These statements were not improper. While Flores is correct that the government referred to its theory as “very reasonable” and Flores’s defense as “crazy” and “preposterous,” the government never argued that these conclusions, or Flores’s failure to corroborate her story about Juan, alone were sufficient to support a conviction. And the government explicitly stated more than a half dozen times that it bore the burden of proving Flores guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Highlighting the weakness of a defense, characterizing it as incredible, and noting the defendant’s failure to produce evidence is not improper, particularly where the government correctly states the burden of proof. See Ruiz, 710 F.3d at 1086–87 (referring to the defense as “smoke and mirrors” is permissible); United States v. Tucker, 641 F.3d 1110, 1120–21 (9th Cir. 2011) (highlighting flaws in the defense is permissible); United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting the defense’s failure to present evidence in support of its theory is permissible); Molina, 934 F.2d at 1445 (arguing that the defendant is a liar is permissible).