Opinion ID: 170999
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Improper Cross Examination and Closing Argument

Text: Mr. DeLozier contends that Perrine's failure to object to his cross-examination by the prosecutor or to the prosecutor's closing argument constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. But his brief does not identify specific improper questions asked during cross-examination (other than the alleged reference to pretrial silence, which was addressed above), nor does it point to any specific improper comments in the closing argument. In the absence of such specifics, we can afford no relief. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (The appellant's brief must contain ... appellant's contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the ... parts of the record on which the appellant relies....); Cummings v. Sirmons, 506 F.3d 1211, 1228 (10th Cir.2007) (appellate claim fails on merits when appellant fails to identify any specific instances to support [a] general assertion of error).