Opinion ID: 216023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rebuttal Summation

Text: Holmes next contends that the government’s characterization of his defense counsel as a pickpocket’s accomplice during its rebuttal summation rendered the trial fundamentally unfair because the remark perniciously portrayed his attorney as a criminal who was helping his client obscure the truth from the jury and led the jurors to believe that adopting the defense’s theory would be the equivalent of falling victim to a scam. Defense counsel did not object to the rebuttal summation at the time, and Holmes concedes that this argument is subject to plain error review on appeal. “An improper remark by a prosecutor will justify a reversal by this Court only if it causes the defendant substantial prejudice by so infecting the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 227 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the defendant did not object to the statement at trial, we evaluate the remarks using plain error analysis, meaning “we must reject his claim unless it . . . seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial 6 proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “[t]he statements must amount to flagrant abuse causing substantial prejudice.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Derogatory comments about defense counsel may warrant reversing a conviction in some cases, depending on, inter alia, the severity and context of the remark. See, e.g., United States v. Friedman, 909 F.2d 705, 709 (2d Cir. 1990) (deeming as improper prosecutor’s remark that “[w]hile some people . . . go out and investigate drug dealers and prosecute drug dealers and try to see them brought to justice, there are others who defend them, try to get them off, perhaps even for high fees”). Applying plain error analysis, however, we hold that the comments at issue in this case do not amount to flagrant abuse.1 See United States v. Millar, 79 F.3d 338, 343-44 (2d Cir. 1996) (deeming prosecutor’s comments that defense counsel was attempting to “confuse” the jury and “lead them astray” did not amount to flagrant abuse under plain error analysis); see also United States v. Beridze, No. 10-0064-cr, 2011 WL 1034269, at  (2d Cir. March 23, 2011) (declining to reverse where the prosecutor characterized defense counsel’s arguments as “side shows” and “red herring[s]” during rebuttal summation); United States v. Jaswal, 47 F.3d 539, 544 (2d Cir. 1995) (characterization of defense case as a “fairy tale” did not amount to prosecutorial misconduct); United States v. Resto, 824 F.2d 210, 212 (2d Cir. 1987) 1 At oral argument defense counsel stated repeatedly that the prosecutor had called Holmes’ defense counsel at trial a “pickpocket’s accomplice.” It is important to note, however, that the prosecutor never actually used that phrase. As the transcript demonstrates, the phrase “pickpocket’s accomplice” is at best an unspoken characterization of the prosecutor’s objectionable comments: If you have ever been in the subways and sometimes you see the posters telling you to watch your wallet, always watch out, somebody may be trying to bump you so somebody else can pick your pocket, trying to distract you so you don’t know what’s really happening, so you don’t know the important thing that’s about to take place, that’s what’s going on here with the summation [defense counsel] just gave. He is trying to jostle you, to bump you, to startle you, to raise up your emotion so you will stop focusing on the issues, the elements of the case. 7 (deeming that prosecutor’s references to defense tactics as “slick bits,” “slyness,” and “sleightof-hand” were “improper” but “not . . . so egregious as to warrant reversal”). Furthermore, given the strong evidence against Holmes, the prosecutor’s remark did not substantially prejudice him. In context, the remarks at issue here, while admittedly improper and inappropriate, do not constitute plain error and thus do not warrant reversal.