Opinion ID: 727854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Disparagement of defense counsel

Text: 18 Cha claims that the government impermissibly disparaged defense counsel during its rebuttal argument. Because this objection was not made at trial, it is reviewed for plain error. 19 Specifically, Cha challenges the prosecutor's comments that defense's closing argument was incredible and stated with a straight face that Cha put money into Ryu's account to avoid income taxes. The prosecutor did not accuse Cha's attorney of lying; his use of the term straight faced merely pointed out that the attorney's argument was inconsistent with Cha's testimony and had no basis in the evidence. 20 More troubling are the prosecutor's statements that defense counsel knows his own client's story makes no sense, absolutely no sense, and he knows you're going to believe Min Ryu. 3 21 Even if the prosecutor's statement was improper it does not rise to the level of plain error. 4 Inappropriate prosecutorial comments, standing alone, would not justify a reviewing court to reverse a criminal conviction obtained in an otherwise fair proceeding. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1985). Such comments must be examined within the context of the trial to determine whether the prosecutor's behavior amounted to prejudicial error. Id. at 12. Here, the prosecutor's comments were brief, and the evidence against Cha substantial. The prosecutor's comments in this case do not rise to the level of impropriety evidenced in the cases Cha cites for support, 5 and they do not rise to the level of plain error.