Opinion ID: 811527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stanley’s Trial

Text: Stanley’s one issue on appeal involves whether the prosecutor’s closing argument commented on Stanley’s failure to testify and shifted the burden of proof. Therefore, we review in detail what happened at trial. After the jury was sworn, the district court explained to the jurors that every defendant is presumed to be innocent and that they could not draw an inference of guilt from the fact that Stanley was indicted. The district court also instructed that 3 Case: 12-12414 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 4 of 9 the government always carries the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant may choose not to testify, and that the jurors were not permitted to draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s decision not to testify. During opening statements, Stanley’s defense counsel stated that “[t]here is nothing that links this gun to Mr. Stanley other than the fact that [Officer Eugene] is going to say, ‘I saw it fall from [Stanley’s] waistband.’” Defense counsel then stated: “I will tell you at the end of the case as to why that didn’t take place.” As its main witness, the government called Officer Eugene, who testified as to his pursuit of Stanley. On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned whether Officer Eugene was able actually to see the gun fall from Stanley’s waistband, since (1) Stanley had a head start on Officer Eugene, (2) Stanley jumped over the fence before Officer Eugene did, and (3) Officer Eugene was unable to see the other side of the fence. Officer Eugene maintained that he personally saw the gun and cell phone fall from Stanley’s person. Stanley’s defense case consisted solely of the testimony of a case agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, who testified that upon Stanley’s arrest, the agent took a DNA swab from Stanley’s cheek. The agent further testified that no analysis on the swab was ever performed. Before the government and the defense presented their closing arguments, 4 Case: 12-12414 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 5 of 9 the district court instructed the jurors that they were not to consider arguments made by counsel as evidence and that they were required to render a verdict based only on the evidence that was in the record. During closing arguments, the prosecutor told the jury, “[n]ow, [defense counsel] also made a promise to you in opening statement. . . . He promised to you that he would show you why—he would tell you why what Officer Eugene saw was a lie.” Defense counsel objected, stating that he did not “believe [he] ever said that Officer Eugene was lying” and that he did not “believe it is fair comment or appropriate comment by the prosecutor to make these comments at this time.” The district court overruled the objection, stating that it thought that the prosecutor’s statement was a “fair comment on the testimony and evidence that was presented.” The prosecutor then argued to the jurors: Now, the judge just instructed you, and will instruct you again, that what we say is not evidence. It is not evidence in this case. What [defense counsel] says is not evidence. What he is about to come up here and tell you will not be evidence, and he did not—you know, he did not show you one piece of evidence as to why Officer Eugene was lying. Now, make no mistake. The burden in this case is squarely on the United States government. We have the burden of proof. But when [defense counsel] makes a promise to you in opening statement you should make him live up to that promise and he did not. .... [T]he judge is going to instruct you again on proof beyond a 5 Case: 12-12414 Date Filed: 11/07/2012 Page: 6 of 9 reasonable doubt, and that’s our burden. We have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt, and we embrace that burden and I’m going to tell you why. Because it is a reasonable doubt. It is not any doubt, it is not a possible doubt, it is not a forced doubt, or a speculative doubt. It is a reasonable doubt. And there has been no reasonable doubt given to you in this case. None. Defense counsel raised no objections during or after this part of the prosecutor’s closing argument. Following the closing arguments, the district court again instructed the jurors to make their decision based on only the testimony and other evidence presented during the trial, and that the government had the burden of proving Stanley guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury found Stanley guilty of one count of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. Stanley then filed this appeal.