Opinion ID: 2746597
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Mercer's Opinion of Guilt

Text: Etienne next claims Mercer improperly expressed his view that the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there existed a conspiracy and Etienne was part of it before opining that the jury could convict Etienne. Etienne points to Mercer's testimony on re-cross examination about Smith's obligation to testify truthfully in accordance with his cooperation agreement. This testimony came only after defense counsel asked several questions geared at pinning down exactly who would determine whether Smith had lied on the stand. Etienne never moved to strike it as non-responsive, nor did he ask the district judge to instruct the jury that they alone determine whether a witness's testimony is credible. We'll set forth the exchange to put it in context. Q. [By defense counsel] Who determines whether or not [Smith's] testimony is truthful? A. [Mercer] I guess the jury. Q. How about the government? A. I think ultimately the jury. Again, if we -- if I thought that he lied and I could prove it, I would bring it to the attention of the U.S. Attorney personally and I guess they'll make their own evaluation at some point. -21- Q. So, then if Mr. Etienne doesn't get convicted, then you assume that the jury thinks [Smith] is lying and if he doesn't get a conviction in this case, [Smith] gets charged with everything going back to 2003, 2004, when he bought the guns in Woburn with Paul, right? A. No. Q. Isn't that what you just testified to? A. If your defendant -- if your client [Etienne] is found not guilty, that's the jury's decision. That doesn't mean that [Smith] lied. It may be we didn't have enough evidence, which I don't -- I think we have -- Q. So that it won't be the jury that determines whether or not [Smith] is lying or telling the truth, it's going to be the government, the one that he made the deal with, who determines whether or not he's testified truthfully? A. That will be one of the factors, yes. Etienne's argument that this testimony mandates a new trial is utterly without merit. Defense counsel elicited the complained-of testimony, and even then only after an extended backand-forth with Mercer. Counsel not only opened the door to this response through his line of inquiry, but practically begged Mercer to walk through it by continuing to pursue it. We will not now suffer to hear Etienne complain of a purported error for which he alone was responsible.7 7 In a single paragraph of his brief, Etienne cherry-picks several unobjected-to statements from the prosecutor's opening and closing arguments, then advances the notion that the government presented its case in such a way as to improperly vouch for Smith's -22-