Opinion ID: 151763
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Propriety Analysis

Text: We begin our two-step analysis of McCann's assertion of prosecutorial misconduct by determining whether or not the Closing and Rebuttal Comments were proper. A prosecutor is confined in closing argument to discussing properly admitted evidence and any reasonable inferences or conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence. United States v. Vargas, 580 F.3d 274, 278 (5th Cir.2009). A prosecutor may argue fair inferences from the evidence that a witness has no motive to lie, but cannot express a personal opinion on the credibility of witnesses. United States v. Gracia, 522 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2008). The test for improper vouching for the credibility of a witness is whether the prosecutor's expression might reasonably lead the jury to believe that there is other evidence, unknown or unavailable to the jury, on which the prosecutor was convinced of the accused's guilt. United States v. Ellis, 547 F.2d 863, 869 (5th Cir.1977) (quoting McMillian v. United States, 363 F.2d 165, 169 (5th Cir.1966)). We have held that it is impermissible per se for a prosecutor to offer personal assurances to the jury that government witnesses are telling the truth ... or to tell the jury that law enforcement witnesses should be believed simply because they were doing their job .... Gracia, 522 F.3d at 601. However, [i]n determining whether a prosecutor's comment was improper, it is necessary to look at the comment in context. United States v. Insaulgarat, 378 F.3d 456, 461 (5th Cir.2004). The prosecutor may ... present what amounts to a bolstering argument if it is specifically done in rebuttal to assertions made by defense counsel in order to remove any stigma cast upon him or his witnesses. United States v. Dorr, 636 F.2d 117, 120 (5th Cir. Unit A Feb.1981). McCann argues that the Closing and Rebuttal Comments were grounds for a mistrial, because they improperly bolstered the credibility of the arresting officers. The Government responds that both comments were an invited response to the accusations of framing and lying made by McCann's counsel. See generally United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) ([I]f the prosecutor's remarks were `invited,' and did no more than respond substantially in order to `right the scale,' such comments would not warrant reversing a conviction.). We hold that the Closing Comment was proper. In United States v. Bermea, we found that a prosecutor had not personally vouched for the credibility of a witness by asserting that government informants were fired if they were found to have lied to law enforcement officers, because the record showed that the prosecutor had merely repeated the testimony of a witness in making this assertion. 30 F.3d 1539, 1564-65 (5th Cir.1994). Similarly, in this case, the factual contents of the Closing Comment were limited to evidence that was in the record. In response to McCann's counsel's repeated assertions that the officers were lying, the prosecutor had asked Officer Cox on redirect to describe the consequences he would face if he were found to have framed McCann. In the Closing Comment, the prosecutor merely repeated the contents of this testimony in the course of arguing that the defense counsel's accusations were without merit. Thus, the Closing Comment did not give the jury any reason to believe that the prosecutor was aware of facts not in evidence that convinced him that the police were telling the truth. The factual representations he made were all in evidence. Therefore, we hold that the district court did not err in declining to grant a mistrial based on the Closing Comment. However, the Rebuttal Comment was a largely emotional appeal to the jury to credit the arresting officers' testimony because they were police officers. As such, it was improper. See Gracia, 522 F.3d at 601 ([I]t is impermissible per se for a prosecutor to ... tell the jury that law enforcement witnesses should be believed simply because they were doing their job ....). That McCann's counsel had accused the arresting officers of lying does not of itself entirely purge the prosecutor's challenged Rebuttal Comment of impropriety. The defense was entitled to challenge the credibility of the officers, just as it was entitled to challenge the credibility of any other witness (although not on the basis of matters not in evidence, as the defense did here). Accordingly, we hold that the Rebuttal Comment was improper.