Opinion ID: 711056
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Allusions to Bank Robbery

Text: 106 Mr. Nash cries foul because the Government, during closing argument, characterized the Defendants as bank robbers and drew parallels between their scheme and the classic take-the-money-and-run bank robbery. Mr. Nash did not object to these references at the time. We therefore review for plain error. 107 We acknowledge that the prosecutor's remarks were certainly less than kind to Mr. Nash. Hard blows are, however, often the essence of argument and, standing in isolation, do not constitute grounds for reversal unless the remarks impermissibly prejudice a defendant. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935) ([W]hile [the government] may strike hard blows, [it] is not at liberty to strike foul ones.); United States v. Feldman, 853 F.2d 648, 665 (9th Cir.1988) (Hard blows are permissible in closing arguments and even when statements go beyond reasonable inferences made from the evidence, reversal is proper only if they were likely to have prejudiced the defendant.), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1030, 109 S.Ct. 1164, 103 L.Ed.2d 222 (1989). 108 We do not see that the prosecutor's comments added a great deal to the Government's case other than emphasizing the somewhat obvious point that a wrongfully obtained loan harms a bank no less than does a bank robbery. However, we also do not think that the remarks prejudiced Mr. Nash to the extent necessary for plain error. It seems wildly implausible that the jury convicted Mr. Nash because it was inflamed by the talk of guns and notes and getaway cars.