Opinion ID: 757025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Attacks on the Defense

Text: 238 Ajaj argues that the government prejudicially attacked the defense during its summation. The government, at various points during its rebuttal summation, criticized Attorney Campriello for lacking common decency, trying to be cutesy, attempting to foist an opinion on the jury, and selling the jury a bill of goods. The government also stated that Campriello's attempt to discredit the government's fingerprint expert, Carol Edelen, by likening her to Pinocchio, was despicable, that Campriello's arguments were preposterous and that Campriello made up testimony and ignored the evidence. Ajaj also argues that the government prejudicially accused Ajaj of lying to Karen Stanton at the United States Embassy and to INS inspectors at Kennedy Airport. 239 [R]eversal on the basis of improper prosecutorial statements during summation is warranted only when the statements, viewed against the entire argument before the jury, deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Myerson, 18 F.3d at 163 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We have repeatedly held that the Government is ordinarily permitted to respond to arguments impugning the integrity of its case and to reply with rebutting language suitable to the occasion. United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 60 (2d Cir.1983) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A reviewing court must not only weigh the impact of the prosecutor's remarks, but must also take into account defense counsel's opening salvo. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 12, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). As Ajaj failed to object at trial to the government's purported attacks on the defense, we review the government's summation for flagrant abuse. 240 On review, we conclude that any improper conduct by the government was largely in response to Attorney Campriello's criticisms of the government's case and, in any event, did not rise to the level of flagrant abuse. Attorney Campriello had, at various points during his summation, referred to the government's arguments as ridiculous, characterized the government's fingerprint expert, Carol Edelen, as Pinocchio, and belittled the prosecutors by referring to them repeatedly by their first name only. Attorney Campriello also remarked that the weakness of the government's evidence required the prosecutors to do a little slipping and sliding, a little bobbing, weaving, a little zigging and zaggin[g] as the case developed. In light of Attorney Campriello's criticisms, the government was entitled to respond with similar language in rebuttal.