Opinion ID: 740542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vouching for Credibility of Witnesses

Text: 49 Guerra also alleges that the prosecutor vouched for the credibility of the government witnesses. In closing argument, the prosecutor made the following statement: 50 And I am here to tell you I think the Government would have to say that they presented excellent testimony. They didn't-- 51 Mr. Butts: Judge, I object to him vouching for the truthfulness or credibility of the witnesses. 52 Mr. Price: I apologize, your Honor. 53 The Court: All right. 54 (Tr. 5-57). Defense counsel interrupted the prosecutor's statement. What the prosecutor might have said had he been permitted to complete his thought is only speculative. Whether such statement was improper might be arguable, but in the context of the argument the statement did not prevent Guerra from receiving a fair trial. The prosecutor apologized for the statement which further reduced its effect. The court instructed the jury in its instructions that counsel's statements were not evidence which further served to obviate any claimed error. (Tr. 5-66). 55 Defense counsel also objected to the following question on the basis that prosecutor was vouching for the credibility of witness Whyde: 56 Q. Mr. Price: And if I determine that you didn't tell the truth, or someone else provides information to me that tells me, or makes me believe that you didn't tell the truth, then I have the right to deny filing that 5K motion. Do you understand that? 57 A. Dianne Whyde: Yes. 58 Mr. Butts: I think we are getting very close to Mr. Price vouching for the credibility of the witness. I did not raise the issue that this gal was lying. As a matter of fact, I said I am sure you are telling the truth. I don't see where this is going, it is repetitious, and I object to it on those grounds. 59 The Court: Well, the objection will be overruled. But I think we have pretty thoroughly exhausted this subject, so let's proceed. 60 (Tr. 3-45 to 3-46). 61 Defense counsel was somewhat disingenuous when he argued to the trial court, I did not raise the issue that this gal was lying (Tr. 3-46), while at the same time conducting a thorough cross-examination concerning her plea agreement and the benefits it provided for a reduced sentence. (Tr. 3-32 to 3-42). The challenged statement amounted to no more than prosecutorial response to defense counsel's examination and, as such, was not error.