Opinion ID: 711056
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Characterization of Testimony

Text: 109 The record indicates that on at least three occasions during closing argument the prosecution characterized statements made by the Defendants as lies. No objection was made to these comments. We therefore review for plain error. We find none. The comments were made during closing argument, and the jury was properly instructed to treat the prosecution's statements as argument and not as evidence. It is hardly surprising that, in a case turning upon the falsehood of certain representations, the prosecution would attempt to persuade the jury that those representations were in fact lies. See United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1445 (9th Cir.1991) (In a case that essentially reduces to which of two conflicting stories is true, it may be reasonable to infer, and hence to argue, that one of the two sides is lying.); cf. United States v. Birges, 723 F.2d 666, 672 (9th Cir.) (prosecution's characterization of defense theory as a fabrication well within the bounds of acceptable comment), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 943, 104 S.Ct. 1926, 80 L.Ed.2d 472 (1984). We therefore fail to see what prejudice Mr. Nash suffered that would support a finding of plain error.