Opinion ID: 667652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Motion to Set Aside Verdict

Text: 12 Defendant moved at trial to set aside the verdict based on prosecutorial misconduct. Defendant contends that the district court improperly denied this motion. Because defendant failed to contemporaneously object to the closing statements of the prosecutor which form the basis of the misconduct claim, we review the district court's refusal to set aside the verdict on this basis only for plain error. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); see United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 14-16, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1045-46, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); United States v. Santiago, 977 F.2d 517, 519-20 (10th Cir.1992). [T]he plain-error exception ... is to be used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. Young, 470 U.S. at 15, 105 S.Ct. at 1046 (internal quotations and citation omitted). 13 In his closing argument, the prosecutor called the defendant a liar and told the jury that the defendant has not been completely truthful with you and if you're to believe anyone you should believe the case that's been presented by the government. Defendant's complaint about this language is understandable. In light of the record it appears that it was unnecessary to advance the prosecution's case and, further, that it was unwarranted. However, allowing such language to stand is far from plain error. 14 The statements at issue were made in the context of a much longer closing argument which detailed the evidence and the law in the case. Further, the jurors witnessed defendant's testimony and could decide for themselves defendant's credibility. Deciding issues of credibility, after all, is one of the main functions of the jury. 3 The prosecutor's comments were not sufficiently egregious to impinge that function. We will not disturb the district court's denial of defendant's motion to set aside the verdict.