Opinion ID: 1195797
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cumulative effect of alleged misconduct

Text: Henry's final challenge to the fairness of his trial is based on the cumulative effect of all of the prosecutor's alleged misconduct as detailed above. Even if individual errors in and of themselves do not constitute reversible error, a defendant may show that the combined effect of individually harmless errors was so prejudicial as to render his trial fundamentally unfair. United States v. Trujillo, 376 F.3d 593, 614 (6th Cir.2004). As discussed in the preceding sections, however, we conclude that only two of the challenged statements were improper: (1) the vouching statement made by the prosecutor regarding Christine Kah's credibility, and (2) the prosecutor's suggestion that the jury convict Henry if they would not encourage their own children to take a job working for him. The remaining challenged statements were not inappropriate. We further conclude that the isolated improper vouching statement and the improper example of reasonable doubt do not cumulate to create uncertainty about the fundamental fairness of Henry's trial. The trial may not have been perfect, United States v. Hernandez, 227 F.3d 686, 697 (6th Cir.2000), but due process does not require absolute perfection. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). In addition, the two errors cumulatively did not seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, and therefore do not rise to level of plain error. See Gardiner, 463 F.3d at 459.