Opinion ID: 677091
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecutor's comment on failure to testify

Text: 33 Parkus contends that the prosecutor infringed on his fifth amendment right not to testify by stating during closing argument: 34 You can't, and I can't help you crawl inside that man's head and determine what he is thinking. It's not possible. You can only determine what a man is thinking by his actions, or if he tells you. And his actions speak loudly, don't they? 35 Appellant's App. Vol. I, Tab 3, at 311. Parkus' counsel failed to object at the time, and the petitioner now contends the trial court's failure to take sua sponte action after the prosecutor's comment constituted plain error. Parkus argues these remarks are even more direct than those condemned by this court in United States v. Prine, 909 F.2d 1109, 1111 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 2263, 114 L.Ed.2d 715 (1991), where the prosecutor remarked: There's only two people who know what their intent was on that day, and they're sitting in this courtroom. 36 In this case, the prosecutor made an indirect reference to the defendant's decision not to testify. Indirect references to the accused's decision not to testify are impermissible if they either (1) manifest the prosecutor's intention to call attention to the defendant's failure to testify, or (2) are such that the jury would naturally and necessarily take them as a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Williams v. Lockhart, 797 F.2d 344, 347 (8th Cir.1986). On a habeas petition, we review any improper reference to determine if it had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)). 37 After reviewing the trial transcript, we conclude, as did the Missouri Court of Appeals and the district court, that the prosecutor's comment did not violate Parkus' fifth amendment rights. The prosecutor made the comment in response to the defense attorney's arguments concerning lack of motive and deliberation; the gist of the prosecutor's responsive argument was that Parkus' actions prior to the slaying (e.g., bringing strips of bedding into Steffenhagen's cell) revealed motive and deliberation. Even if the comment were improper under Williams, we cannot say that it had a substantial or injurious effect or influence upon the jury's verdict. The prosecutor made a single short comment about petitioner's silence during a trial spanning several days. Cf. Brecht, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1722. The district court did not err in rejecting this claim.