Opinion ID: 179299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: References in Closing Argument to Prior Convictions

Text: Finally, Mr. Hall takes issue with the prosecutor's closing argument, which, he claims, reinforced the impact of her improper cross-examination, Aplt. Br. at 49, and impermissibly used the prior convictions to support his guilt. He argues: In closing argument, the prosecutor reinforced the impact of her improper cross-examination by arguing, we know, because of the testimony yesterday, that he's committed four prior bank robberies, two of which he got away with. She added, this argument that he would have been smarter, you know, he had a 50-50 shot at going there, robbing it and getting away. She later reminded the jury, You know that the defendant was a convicted felon, you know about his past, then urged the jury to convict Mr. Hall. And in her rebuttal closing, she argued, He keeps going and he keeps going. He thinks he's going to get away. He's gotten away before. Twice, she referred to Mr. Hall as a multi-convicted felon. Aplt. Br. at 49-50 (citations omitted). Again, however, defense counsel raised no objection at trial to the closing arguments. We therefore review for plain error. See Caraway, 534 F.3d at 1298. The first two remarks quoted in Mr. Hall's brief are from the following discussion by the prosecutor: In the defendant's opening statement there was an argument that Kevin Tommie Hall would have been smarter than to go to the bank in Leavenworth, Kansas driving his own vehicle to rob a bank. Well, we know, because of his past experience, that he has on at least three occasions driven his own vehicle to go commit serious felony crimes. Two of those were, in fact, bank robberies by his own admission. And we know, because of his testimony yesterday, that he's committed four prior bank robberies, two of which he got away with. And so this argument that he would have been smarter, you know, he had a 50-50 shot at going there, robbing it and getting away. And so kind of think through and process all of those thought processes that the defendant would have had back on November 7th of 2006. Trial Tr., Doc. 151 at 592 (emphasis added). In our view, these comments were not clearly improper. Read in context, the prosecutor was arguing that Mr. Hall's prior criminal history would not necessarily have taught him that it was foolish to take his own car to a bank robbery, because half the time that he had done that, he had not been caught. Prosecutors have considerable latitude to respond to an argument made by opposing counsel. United States v. Hernandez-Muniz, 170 F.3d 1007, 1012 (10th Cir.1999). Because the comments do not satisfy the second condition for a plain-error reversal (that the error be plain), they do not justify relief for Mr. Hall. The third remark was made at the end of the prosecutor's opening closing argument. She said: You've got the evidence sitting right over there on the table. You know that the defendant was a convicted felon, you know about his past, and based upon all of the evidence that you've heard in this case, we're asking that you find him guilty of all three counts. Trial Tr., Doc. 151 at 604 (emphasis added). Again, if there was error, it was not plain. The prosecutor was seeking a conviction on all three counts, one of which required proof of a prior felony. It was not wholly out-of-bounds to mention an element of the offense in closing argument. The remaining challenged remarks arose in the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument. The first mention of Mr. Hall as a multi-convicted felon was in the following passage: [Defense counsel] said the reason he didn't tell Agent Gothard about Lee was because he didn't want to snitch anybody out. Here you have an individual who's a multi-convicted felon and he's being accused of a serious offense and he's not going to tell that there was a third person there? Knowing full well that he's a suspect in the case? How much sense, honestly, does that make? Id. at 626. We think it within the limits of proper argument to suggest that an innocent person with a long criminal record would promptly state his alibi to avoid further legal difficulty. The next challenged comment was spoken in the following context: Instruction Number 20 is the aiding and abetting instruction. If you remember, during the course of the defendant's testimony, he said, yeah, we're driving and there's all this stuff being thrown out, I don't even know it was being thrown out, but at some point he realized there was stuff being thrown out and so he says something to Morrison and Morrison said, yeh, well, Lee just robbed something. Does Hall pull over at that moment and say, hold on, whoa, I don't want any part of this? You know, he drives by that funeral procession, you talk about the best place to pull over and say I give up would have been right there. And what does he do? He keeps going. He keeps going and he keeps going. He thinks he's going to get away. He's gotten away before. He ditched the evidence. And it's not until he's stop sticked and he can't go anymore that he finally stops. Not because that's the safest place to stop, but because he can't get away. He knows he's caught. Id. at 629 (emphasis added). This was proper argument to support an aiding-and-abetting conviction (obviously a fall-back theory) by pointing out that even after Mr. Hall knew that Morrison had been involved in a robbery, he continued to assist in Morrison's flight. Finally, the prosecutor again referred to Mr. Hall as a multi-convicted felon at the end of her rebuttal. She said: And then he's talked to, he admits to you or tells you today, I lied to the police, but you need to believe what I told you under oath after being a multi-convicted felon. Based upon all the evidence we're asking you to find the defendant guilty of the three counts because he is, in fact, guilty. Id. at 629-30. The clear import of the comment is that Mr. Hall, as a multi-convicted felon, is not credible. The comment, which is consistent with the rationale for Rule 609, was not clearly improper.