Opinion ID: 2974870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Flagrancy

Text: Edwards cannot establish reversible error, however, because the prosecutor’s brief comment -3- No. 05-2634 United States v. Edwards cannot plausibly constitute flagrant prosecutorial misconduct under the relevant four-factor test. See Collins, 78 F.3d at 1039. First, the advantage the government could have gained by misrepresenting that it performed an inconclusive test is minimal, if not illusory. Edwards claims that this remark “bolstered” what he contends was an error-prone and incomplete police investigation and that it “implied all possible steps were taken to develop the evidence, when, in fact, they had not been.” Evidence elicited by the prosecutor during the trial belies this argument, as the government freely admitted it did not test the weapon for fingerprints.1 Viewing the statement in context, it is difficult to see how the remarks tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the accused. United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 511, 522 (6th Cir. 2005). Examining the second factor, the comment was isolated and limited to one sentence in the government’s summation. Id. Third, nothing about the remark suggests a deliberate attempt to mislead the jury; rather, the context of the statement suggests the prosecutor was searching for an additional response to Edwards’s fingerprints argument beyond her already well-grounded assertion that eyewitness testimony suffices to prove the crime charged. Id. The government’s brief denies any deliberateness, characterizing the statement as “nothing more than [an] overzealous, emotional response[] to strained exculpatory arguments advanced by the defense,” United States v. Smith, 561 F.2d 8, 13 (6th Cir. 1977), and the context of the statement supports this characterization. And finally, the strength of the evidence against Edwards minimizes any harm the statement could cause. Barnett, 398 F.3d at 522. Although Edwards emphasizes a 1 This information was conveyed as a question directed to an investigating officer: “Officer Hull, if you see a person in possession of a firearm, is it necessary that you submit it for fingerprints?” The officer responded, “No ma’am.” -4- No. 05-2634 United States v. Edwards mistake the police made in one section of their report,2 the government produced eyewitness testimony from three police officers who witnessed Edwards possess and fire the gun. We hold the prosecutor’s arguably improper comment was not flagrant, and thus the district court did not plainly err.