Opinion ID: 219576
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety of the Prosecutor's Conduct

Text: With respect to the defendant's argument that the prosecutor's direct examination of Agents Vincent and Minnick improperly bolstered their testimony, the Government maintains that the questioning was proper because the prosecutor did not give a personal opinion about their veracity. [4] When we consider the examination in light of the context in which it was conducted, we agree with the Government that the examination was not improper. During opening statements, the defense told the jury that the evidence is going to show [Aguilar] denied knowledge the whole time, unlike what the agents are going to come here and say. To rebut this suggestion that the agents would lie, the prosecutor was entitled to present evidence tending to show that Vincent had no motive to lie. Vincent's testimony that it would not benefit him or his career if the person he arrested was convicted was permissible to make this point. The prosecutor also asked what would happen if he lied in court, and Vincent replied that he would be pursued for perjury and fired. This testimony was proper to make the same point. When the defense suggests that a witness will lie, the Government is entitled to show that the witness has no motive to lie. [5] Aguilar also argues that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the agents' credibility during the rebuttal portion of his closing argument (1) by telling jurors that lying would jeopardize the agents' careers and (2) by making an improper emotional appeal that the agents would not lie because of their status as agents. The prosecutor in United States v. McCann stated in his closing argument that the officers would not risk their lives and careers by lying in court. [6] We held that this was not error because the prosecutor simply referred to facts an officer had testified to during trial. [7] During his closing argument, the defense counsel in McCann asserted that the police officers would not face any charges or other repercussions if they committed perjury. [8] In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that there was a need to apologize to NOPD officers who wear bulletproof vests because they have to worry about getting shot at on the street and then they come in here in court and they get shot at again ... they get call[ed] liars. [9] This comment was found improper because it was an emotional appeal to bolster the officers' credibility by suggesting that the agents would not lie because they are government agents. [10] Because Aguilar's counsel asserted that Agents Vincent and Minnick were either lying or mistaken, the prosecutor was entitled to rebut the assertion. [11] However, the prosecutor also had a responsibility not to go beyond the evidence and to make his comments appropriate in scale. [12] On direct examination, Agent Vincent had testified that he would likely be prosecuted for perjury and fired if he lied on the stand. Therefore, the prosecutor's rhetorical question about whether the agents would risk their careers, like that asked in McCann, did not go beyond the evidence. However, the comment about Agents Vincent and Minnick getting a sad deal when they go out there every day and do their job.... They strive to protect people like you and me. They put their life on the line, protecting us and our kids. And what do they get for it? They get to come into the courtroom and be called a liar, crossed the line. This argument is indistinguishable from the improper comment in McCann in which the prosecutor said that there was a need to apologize to officers who risked their lives and then were called liars in court. [13] This was a largely emotional appeal to the jury to credit the arresting officers' testimony because they were police officers. [14] Similarly, the comment by the prosecutor in Aguilar's trial was an improper emotional appeal that transmitted the message that the agents' testimony should be believed because they were agents. This error was also clear and obvious. As a recent panel of this court observed, the government has been cautioned repeatedly by this court against making such arguments, yet we continue to face them on appeal. [15] By now, the rules against bolstering should be clear to the Government. The prosecutor in this case, in a rapid series of comments, referred to the agents' positions as government agents, then said it would be alarming if they were lying, they were just doing their jobs, and they strive to be ethical. [16] He then followed up with the emotional appeal that the agents risk their lives for us and our children and that it is a sad deal for them to be called liars. These remarks constituted clear error because they improperly bolstered the credibility of the government agents and cannot be excused as mere rebuttal. [17]