Opinion ID: 51021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Limitation of closing argument

Text: Reasoning that providing awareness of a sentence to the jury is proper, Williams next argues that the district court erred by informing the jury not to consider his counsel’s arguments regarding punishment, as it effectively diluted his closing argument and undermined counsel’s credibility. During his closing arguments, Williams’s counsel argued: I submit to you the government has fallen short with respect to producing evidence from which they will ask the judge to sentence my client to eternal imprisonment, the statutory maximum that can be imposed would be life in prison. Ladies and gentlemen, do not throw Mr. Williams any kind of bone here. If you are going to convict him, just knock him out with all four counts. Do not split the baby in half. Because any one count– At this point, the prosecution objected and was overruled. Counsel then continued: There are four Counts, convicting him of one is the same as convicting him of four. I am asking you to not split the baby. It 8 makes no difference at all. This is an all or nothing proposition. He is either guilty as charged or not guilty as charged. All or nothing. “The district court has broad discretion over closing argument and will be reversed only if counsel is prevented from making all legal arguments supported by the facts.” Hall, 77 F.3d at 400. “In arguing the law to the jury, counsel is confined to principles that will later be incorporated and charged to the jury.” United States v. Trujillo, 714 F.2d 102, 106 (11th Cir. 1983). Counsel cannot argue incorrect or inapplicable theories of law. United States v. Valdes-Guerra, 758 F.2d 1411, 1416 (11th Cir. 1985). We do not permit defense counsel to make a nullification argument to the jury, recognizing “that [while] a jury may render a verdict at odds with the evidence or the law, neither the court nor counsel should encourage jurors to violate their oath.” Trujillo, 714 F.2d at 106 (footnote omitted). Moreover, the Supreme Court has recognized that “providing jurors sentencing information invites them to ponder matters that are not within their province, distracts them from their factfinding responsibilities, and creates a strong possibility of confusion.” Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 579, 114 S.Ct. 2419, 2424, 129 L.Ed.2d 459 (1994). The jury was instructed that it should never consider the question of punishment in deciding the case. Williams requested that the jury convict him of either all counts or no counts immediately after informing the jury that the 9 government would ask the judge to sentence him to “eternal imprisonment.” Based on the context in which Williams made the “splitting the baby” argument, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it was intertwined with the comments regarding punishment. Therefore, by seeking to provide information on punishment to the jury, Williams’s argument contravened the instruction regarding punishment and implicitly encouraged jurors to violate their oath. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to disregard portions of Williams’s closing argument.