Opinion ID: 794279
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of the comments

Text: 30 To obtain a reversal for prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that (1) the prosecutor's remarks were improper, and (2) such remarks prejudiced the defendant's rights in obtaining a fair trial. United States v. King, 36 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir.1994). If we find the comments were improper, we consider the cumulative effect of the improprieties, the strength of the evidence against the defendant, and whether the district court took any curative action. United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512, 526 (8th Cir.2000). This analysis is altered in Wicahpe's case because his attorney did not object to the improper comments or move for a mistrial on this basis, and the district court took no curative action sua sponte. The error is thus unpreserved, United States v. Griffin, 437 F.3d 767, 769-70 (8th Cir.2006), and we review for plain error, United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 31 The author of this opinion has no hesitancy in finding the comments made by the prosecutor to be inappropriate. This court has previously admonished counsel for focusing personal attacks on defense counsel. In United States v. Lopez, 414 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc), the district court sustained an objection to the prosecutor's reference to defense counsel's slick tactics. Although we agreed that this comment alone did not warrant a mistrial, we noted that such conduct by a prosecutor was improper. Id.; cf. United States v. Cannon, 88 F.3d 1495, 1502 (8th Cir.1996) (Referring to defendants as `bad people' simply does not further the aims of justice or aid in the search for truth, and is likely to inflame bias in the jury and to result in a verdict based on something other than the evidence.). Similarly, in United States v. Holmes, 413 F.3d 770, 775 (8th Cir.2005), our court reversed a conviction for prosecutorial misconduct where the prosecutor used closing argument and rebuttal to focus on the conduct and role of [the defendant's] attorney rather than on the evidence of [the defendant's] guilt. The prosecutor in Holmes, as here, suggested that the defense attorney was distracting the jury with red herrings, and insinuated that the attorney and defendant had conspired to fabricate a defense. The Holmes court found it particularly disturbing that the improper comments were made during rebuttal, when the defendant had no opportunity to respond. Id. at 776. 32 The government argues that if the prosecutor's comments were improper at all, they were fair, invited responses to the defendant's closing. I disagree. In Wicahpe's closing, he focused on the fact that Bissonette had brass knuckles. While the prosecutor might have considered this a red herring, it was central to Wicahpe's claim of self-defense, as he would feel the necessity to use more force if he knew or had reason to know that Bissonette used dangerous weapons. The government directs us to the vigorous, sometimes personal, argument made in Petan's closing. That, however, cannot excuse the prosecutor for comments directed at Wicahpe's lawyer.