Opinion ID: 443000
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Claims of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument

Text: 24 Our holding of proper authentication deprives Mojica's claim of prosecutorial misconduct of much of its force. No impropriety arose from the prosecutor's urging the jury to infer from the photograph that Mojica knew of the marihuana and thus intended to join in the conspiracy. 5 The government attorney merely stated his contention as to the conclusion that the jury should draw from the evidence. United States v. Shaw, 701 F.2d 367, 390 (5th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1419, 79 L.Ed.2d 744 (1984); see United States v. Dorr, 636 F.2d 117, 120 (5th Cir.1981). His closing remarks did not go beyond the evidence, mislead the jury, or inflame the jury to act as the conscience of the community. United States v. Ledezma-Hernandez, 729 F.2d 310, 314 (5th Cir.1984); see United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1030 (5th Cir.1981). The argument did not deny Mojica a fair trial. 25 Moreover, even assuming that the prosecutor's inferences went too far beyond the record evidence, we hold that the district court's prompt, curative instructions rendered harmless any misconduct. 6 Five times the trial judge warned the jurors that they need not accept the prosecutor's characterization of the evidence. He also instructed them that the government shouldered the burden of proof but had produced no specific evidence to support its theory. The thorough instructions cured any impropriety in the government attorney's closing remarks. See Ledezma-Hernandez, 729 F.2d at 314; United States v. Shackelford, 709 F.2d 911, 913-14 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 253, 78 L.Ed.2d 239 (1983). 26 AFFIRMED.