Opinion ID: 697383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: War on Drugs

Text: 77 Riverol and Delgado request a new trial based on the following comment by the prosecutor in closing argument: 78 [W]hether you're offended or not by paying Dave Cavanaugh $218,000 over two years for what he did, you shouldn't hold that against Dave Cavanaugh. That doesn't do anything to Dave Cavanaugh's credibility. The United States of America, your government, the DEA, paid Dave Cavanaugh those amounts. They paid Dave Cavanaugh those amounts in their War on Drugs. If you have a problem with Dave Cavanaugh receiving that kind of money, your problem is with the government, it is not with Dave Cavanaugh and it shouldn't reflect on the credibility of Dave Cavanaugh as he testified in this courtroom. 79 (R. 13:1549). 80 Defense counsel objected immediately to the prosecutor's reference to the War on Drugs. The district judge overruled the objection and instructed the jury that they were to try only the issues in the case, not the War on Drugs. Id. 81 The defendants's argument lacks merit. This Court has held that [r]eference during closing argument to the drug problems of society and defendants' roles in such problems are not unduly prejudicial or excessively inflammatory. United States v. Zielie, 734 F.2d 1447, 1461 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Metz, 608 F.2d 147, 158 (5th Cir.1979). 82 Finding no merit to any of the defendants's prosecutorial misconduct allegations, we deny their requests for a new trial. 83