Opinion ID: 214784
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Statements Regarding Fingerprints

Text: Also for the first time on appeal, Tucker argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct when she referred to the fingerprint portions of defense counsel's opening statement as misleading. The prosecutor's comment highlighted the distinction between saying Tucker's fingerprints are not on that gun and we do not know whether Tucker's fingerprints are on that gun. This distinction was supported by the forensic expert's testimony that he did not know whose fingerprints, if any, were on the shotgun. Thus, although misleading might be a slightly harsh adjective, it was not inaccurate. In contrast to the case cited by Tucker, the adjective was limited to one particular statement by defense counsel, rather than directed at defense counsel himself. See United States v. Rodrigues, 159 F.3d 439, 449 (9th Cir. 1998), opinion amended on denial of rehearing at 170 F.3d 881 (9th Cir.1999). [5] More importantly, any prejudice was dissipated by the back-and-forth exchange between the prosecutor's closing statement and defense counsel's closing statement. We determine that the prosecutor's misleading comment, examined in context, was innocuous and the district court did not commit plain error by allowing it.