Opinion ID: 608725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Explaining Absence of Witnesses

Text: 34 During closing arguments defense counsel questioned why the government failed to call the two primary victims of Count III, Bart Valerio and Ashley Brigsdale, who allegedly had been beaten by Carl Moore in an effort to extract the money owed LeMaux for fronted drugs. In rebuttal the prosecutor pointed to the evidence that these two potential witnesses had been severely injured by the defendants and represented that they are scared. 35 A prosecutor may not argue facts which are not part of the evidence presented to the jury. United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1417 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930 (1990). The prosecutor, however, has wide latitude during closing to argue all reasonable inferences from the evidence. Id. The representation that Valerio and Brigsdale were afraid to testify was a reasonable inference from the testimony presented. Furthermore, the evidence of the beatings of Valerio and Brigsdale concerned Count III of which the defendants were acquitted. It cannot be said that any misconduct the prosecutor's statement may represent more likely than not affected the verdict on Count I. See Simtob, 901 F.2d at 806; Potter, 616 F.2d at 392.