Opinion ID: 48706
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Improper Sidebar Remark

Text: 194 Next, Fields argues that the prosecutors made an improper sidebar remark in their redirect examination of Edward Outley, the man who provided Fields with a gun on the night of his escape. In cross-examining Outley, Fields attempted to show that Outley had recently fabricated his testimony. Among other things, Fields asked Outley whether he told the grand jury about the gun. When Outley said yes, Fields showed him a single page of his grand jury testimony. At prompting from Fields, Outley stated that the document contained no testimony about a gun. The jury was thereby left with the misimpression that Outley, in fact, had omitted any mention of the gun before the grand jury. However, Outley had told the grand jury about the gun—just not on the single page of testimony highlighted by Fields. After the Government confirmed this, the prosecutors asked Outley whether he just fell for [Fields's] con [and] forgot that [he] had told [the Grand Jury] all about it. . . . When Outley answered in the affirmative, the prosecutors remarked that [a] lot of people have fallen for that con. 195 Fields argues that prosecutors may not engage in name-calling. However, [t]he use of colorful pejoratives is not improper. United States v. Shoff, 151 F.3d 889, 893 (8th Cir.1998); see United States v. Malatesta, 583 F.2d 748, 759 (5th Cir.1978) (Unflattering characterizations of a defendant do not require a new trial when such descriptions are supported by the evidence.). In this case, it appears that Fields deliberately tried to mislead the jury. In context, referring to Fields's actions as a con was not out-of-bounds. See United States v. Windom, 510 F.2d 989, 994 (5th Cir.1975) (no mistrial was warranted where prosecutor called the defendant a con artist); United States v. Caballero, 277 F.3d 1235, 1249-50 (10th Cir.2002) (no prosecutorial misconduct where defense questioning invited prosecutors to elicit testimony characterizing him as a con man); Shoff, 151 F.3d at 893 (no prosecutorial misconduct where prosecutor labeled the defendant a con man in opening statements). Thus, the prosecutor did not make an improper remark.