Opinion ID: 2312412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Allegedly Improper Closing Arguments

Text: In the appendix to his opening brief, Batista compiles thirty statements made by the government in its summation, each of which, he contends, was improper. Of the thirty statements listed, Batista objected at trial to only two. We therefore address principally those two statements, and review the government's summation for egregious misconduct. [15] United States v. Elias, 285 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 945 (2d Cir.1993) ([T]he misconduct alleged must be so severe and significant as to result in the denial of [the defendant's] right to a fair trial.). A defendant alleging prosecutorial misconduct ordinarily bears a heavy burden. Locascio, 6 F.3d at 945. In this case, because the two objections asserted by defendant's counsel were sustained and the District Court promptly provided the jury with curative instructions, and because we presume that a jury follows the instructions of the court, the burden is even higher. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993) ([E]ven if there were some risk of prejudice, here it is of the type that can be cured with proper instructions, and `juries are presumed to follow their instructions.' (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 211, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987))). Upon consideration of the two challenged comments in the context of the entire record, including the trial transcript, see United States v. Canniff, 521 F.2d 565, 571 (2d Cir.1975), it is clear to us that neither statement rose to the egregious level required to overturn a jury verdict, see Elias, 285 F.3d at 190. The first commentan observation that Batista's co-worker and alleged co-conspirator William Valerio had pleaded guilty to bank fraud referred to a fact already in the record (albeit in a different context). The second, in which the government apparently attempted to appeal to the jury's sense of public duty, was immediately cured by the District Court: it reminded the jurors that their role was not to make a public policy determination, but to decide whether the government had met its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of the charged crimes. Although perhaps inappropriate, neither comment by the prosecutor, in context, was so severe and significant as to deny Batista his right to a fair trial. Locascio, 6 F.3d at 945.