Opinion ID: 506212
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bolstering credibility of witness Spratlen's testimony

Text: 51 Appellant Goff complains that the government prosecutor improperly bolstered Spratlen's credibility by offering his personal opinion as to the latter's veracity. In closing argument, the prosecutor stated: 52 First of all, they have got to convince you that Tom Spratlen was lying because Tom Spratlen was right in the middle of all this that was going on. He was there in person and he's telling the truth and he makes each of them guilty of everything they are charged with in the indictment. They have got to convince you he's lying. 14 53 Counsel for appellant Drewes objected 15 that the quoted argument misstated the court's charge as to the burden of proof. 16 None of the appellants, however, objected at trial to the prosecutor's bolstering the credibility of Spratlen's testimony. Consequently, this Court must apply plain error analysis to determine whether the prosecutor's argument seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceeding and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. United States v. Livingston, 816 F.2d 184, 195 (5th Cir.1987). The government contends that the prosecutor's comments were largely responsive to the attacks by defense counsel upon the credibility of government witnesses. We conclude that this instance of bolstering, standing alone, does not constitute plain error. We shall consider it further, however, in connection with other instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. 54