Opinion ID: 150603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard of Review: Prosecutorial Misconduct

Text: We review for abuse of discretion a district court's ruling on a contemporaneous objection. United States v. Brennan, 326 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir.2003). However, any non-contemporaneous objections are reviewed for plain error. Id. While Lee objected to one portion of the prosecutor's closing argumentthe portion that Lee now claims was vouchinghe did not object to the part of the closing involving Digger's behavior near the rifle. It is only here on appeal that he asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct by suggesting that Digger paused at the coat and rifle. [28] Thus, we review the ruling on alleged vouching for abuse of discretion, and we review the prosecutor's description of Digger's behavior near the rifle for plain error. A prosecutor's comments can create reversible error if they so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). [A] criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor's comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by so doing can it be determined whether the prosecutor's conduct affected the fairness of the trial. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Moreover, we must examine the prosecutor's offensive actions in context and in light of the entire trial, assessing the severity of the conduct, the effect of the curative instructions, and the quantum of evidence against the defendant. Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 107 (3d Cir.2001). A finding of prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal unless the error is harmless. Brennan, 326 F.3d at 182. If the error is constitutional, we will affirm [only] if we determine that the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Helbling, 209 F.3d 226, 241 (3d Cir. 2000). If the error is non-constitutional, we will affirm when it is highly probable that the error did not contribute to the judgment. Id. (quotation omitted).