Opinion ID: 2779689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: prosecutor comments at closing argument

Text: Defendants Alalu, Dr. Kushner, and Jorge Macli argue that the district court abused its discretion by denying motions for mistrial based on remarks made by the prosecutor during rebuttal closing argument. 14 Appellants highlight two separate incidents. After noting the defense attorneys’ various attempts, in closing argument, to plead for sympathy for the circumstances of the various defendants, the prosecutor argued: 13 At oral argument, counsel for Jorge Macli acknowledged that this challenge on appeal would be subject to harmless error analysis. 14 Defendant Jorge Macli has adopted the others’ arguments as to this issue. Separately, and for the first time on appeal, defendant Biscayne Milieu challenges additional remarks made in the government’s rebuttal closing; these remarks are reviewed for plain error. Defendant Biscayne Milieu argues (1) that it was improper for the prosecutor to challenge the credibility of a defense expert and (2) that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of a testifying FBI agent. Neither of these remarks, which drew no objection at trial, rises to the level of plain error. 43 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 44 of 85 We are all human beings and it is perfectly understandable to feel badly for the positions that these defendants have put themselves in, but your job is to evaluate their guilt based on the law and the facts. And recognize this: Over the course of the last six-and-a- half weeks, I think you have gotten to know all of us very well, and I think that you would agree with me that all of the defense attorneys are very – are very talented, very diligent and very committed to their client’s cause. Ask yourself this: If these attorneys are trying to subtlely tap into your feelings of sympathy, what does that say about what they know of what would happen – Jorge Macli’s attorney immediately objected, arguing this was not about sympathy but rather the government’s attempt to use defense counsel’s sympathy plea to show defense counsel’s awareness of their clients’ guilt. The district court sustained the objection and struck the comment, telling the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s last statement. After the government’s closing, the defendants moved for a mistrial, arguing the comments regarding the sympathy pleas had undermined the defense lawyers’ effectiveness before the jury. The district court denied the motion but gave a curative instruction to the jury, stating in part: So whether [the prosecutor] was misunderstood or misspoke, what he said concerning what the lawyers may or may not think is just not proper and it shouldn’t be considered by you. All these lawyers are very ethical and you have seen them, as [the prosecutor] even pointed out himself, that 44 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 45 of 85 they are talented, they care about their clients, they care about the case and they care about doing the right thing. I think that is everybody’s goal here and it has been throughout the last couple of months. So please do not consider that when you go to consider your verdict tomorrow. Defendants Dr. Kushner and Biscayne Milieu argue that another remark, which also gave rise to a denied motion for mistrial, resulted in an abuse of discretion by the district court. The prosecutor discussed the case of a repeat Biscayne Milieu patient who ultimately died. The prosecutor stated: The reason why Biscayne Milieu stopped billing for Richard Adderley is that he died. And he died -- we don’t know if treatment -- if the better form of treatment would have helped, but we know that Biscayne Milieu didn’t care. Richard Adderley was someone who was set up for failure at Biscayne Milieu like so many other people. That’s not good faith. That is criminal intent. That’s guilt. Counsel for Huarte and Roberts, after the closing concluded, moved for a mistrial, arguing that the prosecutor had blamed Biscayne Milieu for Adderley’s death. The district court denied the motion. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of these motions. To show prosecutorial misconduct, the challenging defendants must show both that: “(1) the remarks [were] improper, and (2) the remarks must [have] prejudicially affect[ed] the substantial rights of the defendant.” Reeves, 742 F.3d at 505 (internal quotation and citations omitted). “A defendant’s substantial rights 45 Case: 12-16056 Date Filed: 02/17/2015 Page: 46 of 85 are prejudicially affected when a reasonable probability arises that, but for the remarks, the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Id. As to the prosecutor’s comments regarding sympathy, the district court sustained the objection and gave curative instructions. Given the curative steps taken by the district court, we cannot now say that the defendants were substantially prejudiced by such comments. See United States v. Rodriguez, 765 F.2d 1546, 1560 (11th Cir. 1985) (holding curative instructions sufficient to offset prosecutor’s prejudicial comments). As to the comments regarding Adderley, the district court, in denying the motion for mistrial, found that the prosecutor did not blame Biscayne Milieu for Adderley’s death. This was not an abuse of the district court’s discretion.