Opinion ID: 618889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Protection of the Community

Text: Prosecutors are not permitted to incite the passions of a jury by suggesting they ... act as the `community conscience' to society's problems. Rogers, 556 F.3d at 1143; see also Wilson v. Sirmons, 536 F.3d 1064, 1120 (10th Cir.2008) (It is improper for a prosecutor to suggest that a jury has a civic duty to convict. (quotations omitted)). This restriction is balanced, however, by the acknowledgement that in an emotionally charged trial, the prosecutor's closing argument need not be confined to such detached exposition as would be appropriate in a lecture. United States v. Jones, 468 F.3d 704, 708 (10th Cir.2006) (quotations omitted). During his closing argument, Mr. Fleming's attorney challenged the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses. He stated: who did [the prosecution] call? ... I am going to remind you of their records. ROA, at 569. He then recited the criminal record of each Government witness. In rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor stated: I wish that priests and nuns attended drug deals. I wish they came along when drug dealers got together to decide that they were going to bring methamphetamine from Denver to Cheyenne to pollute this community with methamphetamine's poison and take money back to Denver so they don't have to do real jobs. I wish folks who dealt drugs decided that [Agent] Smith could go with them on each of their trips. I wish it were safe to let men like [Agent] Smith and women who do the same job to go undercover for years at a time so that I could bring you perfect people to tell you what a drug conspiracy is like and to tell you about drug deals. I didn't put [the witnesses] in the same rooms as [Mr.] Fleming. He did. They're his friends. And ultimately whether they're good or bad people, whatever they've done in the past, they admitted it to you.... The ... felony convictions that [defense counsel] read to you, you already heard them from the witnesses at the very beginning of their testimony. They are who they are, and they are the only people who live drug conspiracies, live drug deals every day, and can really tell you what happens. [Agent] Smith can tell you what he's learned about drug distribution and drug use, but he's telling you that based on interviews with people just like you saw testify. They are the best witnesses to talk about drug conspiracies because they are the only people who live it and really know it. And in this case they were the only people who were there, the only people other than [Mr. Fleming]. It's ironic to read Cathy Scott's felonies when they've been friends for 30 years. Id. at 574-75 (emphases added). Mr. Fleming contends that the prosecutor's statement that they were going to bring methamphetamine from Denver to Cheyenne to pollute this community with methamphetamine's poison and take money back to Denver so they don't have to do real jobs, id. at 574, was intended to inflame the juror's passions and sympathies to obtain a guilty verdict to protect the community from the scourge of drugs. Aplt. Opening Br., at 26. When read in isolation, the prosecutor's statement could potentially support Mr. Fleming's position. But when evaluating whether a statement is improper, we must view the statement in context. See Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d at 738 (When evaluating allegedly inappropriate remarks of counsel for plain error, we must view the remarks in the context of the entire trial. (quotations omitted)); see also United States v. Franklin-El, 555 F.3d 1115, 1125 (10th Cir.2009) (A criminal conviction is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor's comments standing alone, for the statements or conduct must be viewed in context; only by doing so can it be determined whether the prosecutor's conduct affected the fairness of the trial. (quotations omitted)). When read in context, the prosecutor's statement was responsive to defense counsel's argument that the Government's witnesses could not be believed because they were convicted felons. See Franklin-El, 555 F.3d at 1126 (finding it relevant in the context of a prosecutorial misconduct claim, that many of the prosecutor's comments were responsive to defense counsel's closing in which he discussed the numerous witnesses' credibility and questioned their motives to tell the truth). We have repeatedly recognized that considerable latitude is given [to] the prosecutor in closing argument in replying to an argument raised by defense counsel's closing statement. United States v. Janus Indus., 48 F.3d 1548, 1558 (10th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Hall, 625 F.3d 673, 685 (10th Cir.2010) (Prosecutors have considerable latitude to respond to an argument made by opposing counsel. (quotations omitted)); United States v. Grey Bear, 883 F.2d 1382, 1391-92 (8th Cir. 1989) (It is well established that prejudicial error does not result from the improper remarks made during closing argument when such remarks were provoked by opposing counsel. (quotations omitted)). The prosecutor in Mr. Fleming's case did not exceed the scope of that latitude. Because the prosecutor's statement was made in response to defense counsel's closing argument and does not appear to have been directed toward incit[ing] the passions of a jury by suggesting they can act as the `community conscience,' we conclude that it was not improper.