Opinion ID: 70109
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Brown—Vouching for Witness

Text: Brown argues that the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the veracity of a pivotal Government witness, Jerome Richardson, in his closing argument, citing United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375, 377 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1034, 104 S.Ct. 1304, 79 L.Ed.2d 703 (1984). He contends that plain error was committed when the prosecutor told the jury that, in effect, a federal judge found Richardson credible enough to issue a search warrant.10 Brown 10 The prosecutor stated: Moving on to John Brown, Big John. The juvenile said John Brown used to pick Ricky up, and he knew money was picked up from John Brown. Jerome Richardson stated that a year and a half ago, before he was an informant, John Brown brought Jivens, Ricky, $15,000 at Waldburg and Lincoln. Ground zero for the Ricky Jivens' cocaine operation. Jerome Richardson said, and you saw evidence of this on the videos, that John Brown was the one, John was the one who didn't return Ricky's pages enough—promptly enough to satisfy the boss. And Jerome Richardson testified that he went to 40 C Lakeside Apartments to pick up the money that Ricky had directed them to go pick up from John Brown, a sum greater than $10,000 and bring back to Ricky. Now as Agent Snider testified, that information was the sole basis the agents had to go seek the search warrant on Mr. Brown. And a judge, state or federal, is not going to give a Drug Enforcement Administration agent or any law enforcement officer a search warrant to search anybody's house for no reason. They got to have some showing and the showing, as Mr. Snider testified to, was largely a narrative of what Jerome Richardson had related in other aspects of the case. And what do the agents find when they go out there? Drugs, cash, glassine bags, a ledger, completely corroborating what Jerome Richardson testified to. Look at the Government's 28 series exhibits. They show beyond a shadow of a doubt John Brown to be dealing cocaine and the other evidence in the case shows John Brown to have been dealing cocaine for and asserts that the effect of these remarks was to place the prestige and office of the judiciary behind Richardson and turn the judge into a witness for the prosecution. The Government argues that it was merely suggesting to the jurors that DEA agents were successful in obtaining a search warrant based on Jerome Richardson's information and the resulting search confirmed that information. We agree.
Absent a contemporaneous objection, the propriety of the Government's closing argument and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in improperly vouching for a witness' credibility are reviewed under a plain error standard. Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b); United States v. Lacayo, 758 F.2d 1559, 1564 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 568, 88 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985).
Attempts to bolster a witness by vouching for his credibility are normally improper and constitute error. United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 869 (5th Cir.1977). It is improper for the prosecution to place the prestige of the Government behind a witness by making explicit personal assurances of the witness' veracity. United States v. Eley, 723 F.2d 1522, 1526 (11th Cir.1984). We denounce lawyers who give their personal opinion that I believe the witness is telling the truth. United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Here we have undertaken to weigh the prosecutor's comments in the context of the entire trial. We are persuaded that the with Ricky Jivens. (Emphasis added.) incident was neither vouching nor an attempt to invoke the court as a guarantor of truthfulness. When the prosecutor stated [a]nd a judge, state or federal, is not going to give a ... law enforcement officer a search warrant to search anybody's house for no reason ..., this was a suggestion to the jury that the information Richardson gave to the court to support the warrant was confirmed by the search, and, lo and behold, these very articles were found. The prohibition against vouching does not forbid prosecutors from arguing credibility ... it forbids arguing credibility based on the reputation of the government office or on evidence not before the jury. United States v. Hernandez, 921 F.2d 1569, 1573 (11th Cir.1991). The remarks were designed to refer the jury to evidence in the case that was favorable to the Government. Id. To the extent that the prosecutor might have been interpreted as saying, The judge who issued the search warrant must have believed that Richardson was a credible person or he would not have issued a search warrant on the basis of his statement, this would have been offensive vouching. Brown strains to reach this interpretation however. The question is: what did the agents find when they got there? The same things Richardson said they would find. While the prosecutor teetered on the line dividing a proper from an improper closing argument, his comments were not an explicit personal or judicial endorsement of credibility and, in the absence of objection, do not constitute plain error.