Opinion ID: 692869
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutor's Closing Statements

Text: 21 Johnson makes two arguments regarding the propriety of the prosecutor's statements during his closing argument. First, Johnson argues that the prosecutor improperly commented on Johnson's future dangerousness and, as a result, improperly influenced the jury. Johnson argues that, by exclaiming God forbid after raising the possibility of the jurors running into Johnson on the street, the prosecutor appealed to the personal passions, fears, and vulnerabilities of the jurors. 22 The prosecutor's inadvertent remark was not wholly improper in the context of the entire trial. In view of the large amount of inculpatory evidence, the impact of the prosecutor's comment was likely minimal. A single improper remark in a lengthy trial does not generally require reversal. See U.S. v. Hinton, 31 F.3d 817, 825 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 773 (1995). 23 Second, Johnson contends that certain of the prosecutor's closing statements led the jury to believe that defense counsel was distorting the evidence in an attempt to deceive the jury. Johnson's claim is exaggerated. The prosecutor simply pointed out misstatements of the evidence by Getz. Such comment was entirely proper. See U.S. v. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d 1378, 1385 (9th Cir.1986) (The prosecutor did not overstep the bounds of proper advocacy in addressing what he perceived to be defense counsel's 'misrepresentations' of the record). 24 AFFIRMED.