Opinion ID: 170237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application to Defendant's trial

Text: Under the appropriate standard of review applicable to the issues raised, Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct claim still fails. The two-step process for evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct requires us first to examine whether the conduct was, in fact, improper. Oberle, 136 F.3d at 1421. As Defendant argues, and the government does not seriously contest, the prosecutor's appeal to the jury to assist in solving a pressing social problem by convicting Defendant was improper. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 768, 769-70 (8th Cir.1992) (reversing the defendant's conviction and holding that the prosecutor's remarks . . . were unduly inflammatory and improper where the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument included the following: Your decision to uphold the law is very important to society. You're the people that stand as a bulwark against the continuation of what Mr. Johnson is doing on the street, putting this poison on the street.); United States v. Solivan, 937 F.2d 1146, 1148-55 (6th Cir.1991) (reversing the defendant's conviction where, during closing argument, the prosecutor told the jury, And I'm asking you to tell her and all of the other drug dealers like her that we don't want that stuff in Northern Kentucky and that anybody who brings that stuff in Northern Kentucky. . . .); United States v. Monaghan, 741 F.2d 1434, 1442-43 (D.C.Cir. 1984) (holding that the prosecutor's remarks, in his rebuttal closing argument, that the defendant was not an exemplary police officer and should be held to a higher standard of conduct as a police officer, were improper). Nevertheless, the prosecutor's improper comment during opening argument does not warrant reversal. A prosecutor's improper statement to the jury is harmless unless there is reason to believe that it influenced the jury's verdict. . . . To warrant reversal, the misconduct must have been flagrant enough to influence the jury to convict on grounds other than the evidence presented. Gabaldon, 91 F.3d at 94. In analyzing whether the prosecutor's improper statement affected the outcome of the trial, we must consider the trial as a whole, including the curative acts of the district court, the extent of the misconduct, and the role of the misconduct within the case. Id. Thus, factors relevant to determining whether the improper commentary affected the fairness of the trial include whether the instance was singular and isolated, whether the district court instructed the jury that the attorneys' argument was not evidence, and whether there was substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt. Oberle, 136 F.3d at 1420. Here, the prosecutor made the improper remark during the government's opening statement. The prosecutor made no further reference to the statement during the remainder of the trial. In United States v. Gallegos, 738 F.2d 378, 383 (10th Cir.1984) (citations omitted), we explained that allegedly improper remarks during the opening statement were harmless, because [t]he comments were made at the very beginning of the trial in opening statement. The matter was not mentioned again before the jury until the defendant brought it up himself. The evidence against defendant was substantial, if not overwhelming. The comments were not made by the government in closing argument and they were not fresh in the minds of the jurors. . . . See also United States v. Portillo-Quezada, 469 F.3d 1345, 1352 (10th Cir.2006) (More importantly, after the incident [during voir dire] the prosecutor made no further attempts at trial to capitalize on the remarks. . . .); Ivy, 83 F.3d at 1288 (We ordinarily will not reverse if the misconduct was merely `singular and isolated.' (quoting United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486, 1491 (10th Cir.1991))). The fact that the trial lasted only three days does not change the singular and isolated nature of the prosecutor's statement. See United States v. Gordon, 173 F.3d 761, 769 (10th Cir.1999) ([T]he purported misconduct is insignificant when the trial is considered as a whole. It consisted of a single question in a two-day proceeding that was not answered by Gordon nor commented on by the prosecutor in closing argument.). Moreover, [a] central assumption of our jurisprudence is that juries follow the instructions they receive. United States v. Castillo, 140 F.3d 874, 884 (10th Cir.1998); see also Gordon, 173 F.3d at 769 (Absent evidence to the contrary, we assume the jury follows a curative instruction.). In this case, Defendant immediately objected to the statement, and the district court instructed the jury to remember that what the lawyers tell you is not evidence, and the evidence in the case is what you must decide. Tr. at 161-62. Before opening statements began, the court likewise instructed the jury that [t]he opening statements are not evidence, id. at 143, and in the final jury instructions submitted before closing arguments, the court reminded the jury to consider only the evidence I have admitted in the case and that any statements, objections, or arguments made by the lawyers are not evidence in the case, id. at 686. Finally, contrary to Defendant's contention, there was substantial evidence of [his] guilt. Oberle, 136 F.3d at 1420. Mr. Boyd testified that Defendant punched him twice in the face and dragged him out of the car, after which someone immediately and repeatedly kicked Mr. Boyd in the face and ribs. Mr. Howe testified that Defendant hit Mr. Boyd and pulled him out of the car; he did not know if Defendant hit Mr. Boyd again. Even Ms. Echohawk testified that, although she did not know if Defendant punched Mr. Boyd any additional times, thirty seconds elapsed between the time when Defendant audibly hit Mr. Boyd and the time when Defendant returned to her side. Further, investigators found Mr. Boyd's blood on both the exterior and interior of the car, including the center console and the passenger door. Defendant is correct that Mr. Boyd's testimony and Mr. Howe's testimony contained some inconsistencies when compared to their statements to the investigator, Officer Koenig. Both Mr. Boyd and Mr. Howe, though, had previously told Officer Koenig that defendant hit Mr. Boyd repeatedly, and most of Mr. Boyd's inconsistencies dealt with his conduct towards Ms. Echohawk, not the details of the assault itself. As the district court stated, depending on the version the jury chooses to believe, . . . there is sufficient evidence . . . that would support a conviction of the [D]efendant on Count 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the strength of the evidence against Defendant, the jury had more than enough evidence to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the improper statement by the prosecutor.