Opinion ID: 757025
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Government Vouching

Text: 217 Abouhalima argues that during rebuttal summation, a prosecutor improperly vouched for a witness. Specifically, according to the trial record, Ashraf Moneeb (the roommate of Salameh and Yousef at 251 Virginia Avenue) testified that one Mohammad Abouhalima had assisted Yousef and Salameh relocate to the 40 Pamrapo apartment. Because Abouhalima's first name is Mahmoud and not Mohammad, and because Abouhalima's brother is named Mohammed, Abouhalima argued during summation that Moneeb had testified to certain assistance rendered by his brother and not him. On rebuttal summation, Abouhalima claims that the prosecutor, in an attempt to discredit Abouhalima's argument, told the jury that he knew that the witness Moneeb meant to say that Mahmoud Abouhalima, and not his brother Mohammad, had helped Salameh and Yousef find the 40 Pamrapo apartment, and thus improperly vouched for Moneeb. 218 We find no support in the record for the proposition that the government engaged in vouching, and in any event conclude that the government's remarks did not deprive Abouhalima of a fair trial. A prosecutor must scrupulously refrain from injecting his credibility into any part of the trial. United States v. Damsky, 740 F.2d 134, 138 n. 3 (2d Cir.1984). The controlling question is whether the remarks of the prosecutor invaded the accused's right to a fair trial. United States v. Clark, 613 F.2d 391, 405 (2d Cir.1979). 219 A review of the argument and relevant testimony dispels the notion that the jury was asked to substitute the prosecutor's knowledge for the actual testimony. Specifically, in its main summation, the government reminded the jury that a witness, Ashraf Moneeb, testified that Yousef had told him that the appellant, Mahmoud Abouhalima had helped Yousef and Salameh find a new place to live. In Abouhalima's summation, Abouhalima pointed out that the transcript of Moneeb's testimony indicated that Yousef attributed that assistance to Abouhalima's brother, Mohammad Abouhalima. During rebuttal summation, the government argued that although the trial transcript did read Mohammad Abouhalima, the witness in fact had said Mahmud Abouhalima and the court reporter simply had made a mistake. As the prosecutor observed: 220 Obviously there was a mistake. If Mr. Moneeb had said Mohammad Abouhalima why would then [defendant Abouhalima's counsel] have [Moneeb] point out [the appellant] Mahmoud Abouhalima on his cross-examination which he did. 221 .... 222 I suggest to you that is a mistake and you know it is from all the other evidence. 223 The prosecutor then cataloged the array of proof confirming that Mahmoud Abouhalima (and not his brother Mohammad) had assisted Yousef and Salameh in obtaining the 40 Pamrapo apartment, evidence that included the balance of Moneeb's testimony and the voluminous telephone records linking Mahmoud Abouhalima with Salameh and Yousef just before the rental of the apartment. Further, the prosecutor noted that the telephone records reflected no calls to Mohammad Abouhalima. In sum, the record does not support Abouhalima's allegation of government vouching and, in any event, the prosecutor's remarks did not deprive Abouhalima of a fair trial.