Opinion ID: 2974463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statement Made While Cross-examining Henry

Text: Henry argues that the “government counsel’s sneer-like reference to . . . Riffle as a ‘rocket scientist’ during cross-examination of Henry, which the [c]ourt allowed to stand over objection, was an improper disparagement of Henry’s version of the events which led to the charge against him and of his defense . . . .” Henry Br. at 21. Although this isolated comment was improperly made during testimony, it would have been acceptable to make the same comment during the government’s summation. We conclude that the comment did not materially affect the verdict and was harmless error. C. Government’s Comment on Henry’s Failure to Relate His Story to Others Henry argues that the government improperly commented on Henry’s “post-arrest silence to impeach his exculpatory testimony at trial,” thereby violating his right to due process. Henry Br. at 23. Specifically, the government stated in summation: Did anybody see three guys threatening him? Did anybody see him doing anything that would put him in a well grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury? No one testified to any such thing. They all saw Mr. Henry with the gun in the hand, but they didn’t see any three white guys around beating him up. Now let’s go back to Mr. Henry’s testimony. And incidentally there’s no evidence in this case that he has ever made this statement until he took the stand yesterday, no evidence whatsoever. J.A. at 248 (Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 23) (emphasis added). In Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), the Supreme Court held “that the use for impeachment purposes of [a defendant’s] silence, at the time of arrest and after receiving Miranda 8 warnings, violate[s] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 619. In Doyle, the government’s cross-examination pertained to the defendant’s failure to explain his version of the events to the arresting officer. Id. at 613-15. In contrast, in this case, the context in which the government’s comment was made was easily understood by the jury as meaning that Henry had never told any of the witnesses (including his wife and friends) that he had been attacked by three men. There was no testimony at trial about any interrogation by the police, custodial or otherwise. This statement by the government as to Henry’s silence, was not, therefore, improper, but was a permissible method of impeaching Henry’s credibility. D. Government’s Comment that No One At the Scene Saw the “Altercation” Alleged by Henry Next, Henry argues that it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to state that of the up to forty people in the bar parking lot, no one saw the altercation involving Henry, when, at trial, only seven of the people who were at the bar testified. J.A. at 254 (Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 29). Specifically, Henry takes issue with the following statement made by the prosecutor: This was a crowded parking lot. There were at least 12 or 15 people and probably more like 25 or 40 people there. And no one — no one saw this fight except Mr. Henry. No one saw him being confronted. No one even — there is no testimony that anybody even called him a racist epitaph [sic; should read “epithet”], none. Nobody heard him confronted, poked, in any way intimidated that night except Mr. Henry himself. There is no support except his own testimony. Id. According to Henry, this constituted prosecutorial misconduct because: 1) this was an attack on Henry’s credibility based on evidence not before the jury (no evidence was introduced on what the people who did not testify saw that night); 2) the government needed, but failed to seek, an advance ruling permitting it to argue to the jury that it should draw an adverse inference from 9 Henry’s failure to produce witnesses corroborating his version of the events; and 3) this misstatement constituted improper bolstering of the witnesses who did testify. As Henry did not object to this comment during trial, we review its admission under the plain-error standard. 1. Attack on Credibility Based on Evidence Not Before the Jury Henry argues that the statement at issue was improper because it attacked his credibility based on evidence not before the jury. We have previously held that a “prosecutor may assert that a defendant is lying during her closing argument when emphasizing discrepancies between the evidence and that defendant’s testimony,” but “such comments must ‘reflect reasonable inferences from the evidence adduced at trial.’” United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402, 1409-10 (7th Cir.1992)). In its closing, the prosecutor addressed the lack of corroborating witnesses twice. The first time, after naming the seven witnesses who had testified, the prosecutor rhetorically asked, “Now how many of those people saw the defendant being jumped by three unknown racists . . . ? No one saw that, we just have Mr. Henry’s word for it.” J.A. at 247 (Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 22). The statement that Henry now takes issue with was made after this statement. Although the statement Henry takes issue with was not as carefully limited to the seven witnesses at trial, when viewed in the context of the earlier statement, it was not misleading to the jury. The statement at issue was not a comment on Henry’s failure to call a witness equally available to the government, but rather it pointed out that none of the trial witnesses other than Henry had seen any attack on him, and that if an attack had occurred, someone in the crowd would have seen it. See also United States v. Forrest, 402 F.3d 678, 686 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that “the prosecutor was entitled to point out the lack of evidence supporting [the defendant’s] theories.”). Admission of this statement was not plain error. 10 2. Failure to Seek an Advance Ruling Henry argues that an advance ruling was required before the prosecutor could make the statement at issue. See United States v. Beeler, 587 F.2d 340, 343 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 860 (1981) (ruling that “counsel must seek and obtain an advance ruling from the [c]ourt on the permissibility of arguing for an adverse inference to be drawn from the absence of witnesses”). However, in United States v. Martin, 696 F.2d 49 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1073 (1983), we explained that an advance-ruling requirement applies only where the prosecutor makes a direct request that the jury draw an adverse inference, or possibly where there is “a strong implication,” that such an inference should be drawn. Id. at 52. Because the prosecutor’s statement here did not directly request the jury to make an adverse inference respecting Henry’s failure to produce corroborating witnesses, nor did the statement strongly imply that the jury should do so, an advance ruling on the matter was not required before the prosecutor made the statement. 3. Bolstering Henry argues that the prosecutor’s statement constituted improper bolstering. “Bolstering occurs when the prosecutor implies that the witness’s testimony is corroborated by evidence known to the government but not known to the jury.” Francis, 170 F.3d at 551. Here the comment merely pointed to the lack of any evidence supporting Henry’s testimony that he had been attacked. The statement did not suggest that the government knew anything that the jury did not. In fact, the prosecutor prefaced its argument with an explicit statement to the contrary: I’d just like to point out a couple of things that I would like you to consider while you review th[e] evidence. And before I do that, let me explain, I’m not telling you my personal belief of anything. I don’t know anything more about this case than you do. You’ve sat through the whole trial. You were here for every — for every moment in the testimony. And if something I say doesn’t comport with your memory 11 of the testimony, then you should certainly disregard it. I’m not telling you what I think you should do based on anything other than the testimony that you heard here in [c]ourt. J.A. at 246 (Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 21). There was no improper bolstering here.