Opinion ID: 4544635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecution’s Comments During Rebuttal

Text: Third, Muller argues that the prosecution improperly shifted the burden of proof to him during its remarks during rebuttal. During rebuttal, the prosecution was responding to Muller’s argument that another drug dealer could have provided the deadly drugs. The prosecution noted that, based on the cell tower information, none of the parties had texted or called another drug dealer between 12:00 and 1:32 AM, when Hamilton began searching on the internet for overdose symptoms. The prosecutor then posed a rhetorical question: “Is there any evidence that from midnight to 1:32 that anybody else was over at that house except for Hillary Hamilton coming to get into it with her brother?” 4 Muller objected to the prosecution’s argument and the district court instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s rhetorical question. The prosecution then continued by noting, “There 4 Here, we note that Hamilton’s sister arrived at Williams’s house and got into an argument with Hamilton over his quick departure from the hospital after recovering from his seizure. Neighbors called the police, who arrived at the scene and did not enter the house. 17 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 18 of 25 is no evidence . . . that anyone other than [Hamilton’s sister] came over to that house that night, none, from midnight to 1:32.” On appeal, Muller argues that, by asking the rhetorical question, the prosecution improperly shifted the burden of proof to him. We review issues of prosecutorial misconduct de novo. United States v. Noriega, 117 F.3d 1206, 1218 (11th Cir.1997). “Prosecutorial misconduct requires a new trial only if we find the remarks (1) were improper and (2) prejudiced the defendant’s substantive rights.” United States v. Hernandez, 145 F.3d 1433, 1438 (11th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted). See also United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2006) (“A defendant’s substantial rights are prejudicially affected when a reasonable probability arises that, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different.”). To determine the prejudicial impact of the prosecutor’s statements, we “must evaluate them in the context of the trial as a whole and assess their probable impact on the jury.” Id. In a criminal proceeding, the government has the burden of proving every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Simon, 964 F.2d 1082, 1086 (11th Cir. 1992). During closing arguments, “prosecutors must refrain from making burden-shifting arguments which suggest that the defendant has an obligation to produce any evidence or to prove innocence.” Id. However, a prosecutor is allowed to “comment on the failure of the defense, as 18 Case: 19-11783 Date Filed: 06/26/2020 Page: 19 of 25 opposed to that of the defendant, to counter or explain the testimony presented or evidence introduced.” United States v. Johnson, 713, F.2d 633, 651 (11th Cir. 1983). “[P]rejudice from the comments of a prosecutor which may result in a shifting of the burden of proof can be cured by a court’s instruction regarding the burden of proof.” Simon, 964 F.2d at 1087. Here, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments during his rebuttal argument did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to Muller. The prosecutor’s comments were in response to Muller’s theory that the drugs that killed the victim could have come from numerous other sources and not him, and thus, were the type of arguments that commented on the failure of the defense, not the defendant, and were allowed. Furthermore, even if the government’s argument did impermissibly shift the burden, they were quickly cured by the court’s instruction to the jury to disregard the government’s comments, and further cured by the courts instruction to the jury that the burden of proof rested on the government’s shoulders alone. Accordingly, we affirm in this respect as well.