Opinion ID: 774819
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: improper closing argument in guilt phase

Text: 104 During her closing argument in the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor made several remarks that petitioner contends deprived him of a fair trial. The district court denied relief because petitioner failed to raise them on direct appeal and thus they are procedurally barred. We agree that this claim has been procedurally defaulted. 105 Even were we to reach the merits of the claim, however, our decision would not be altered. Among other things, the prosecutor told the jury:Defendant varies his stories and his ability to shade the evidence, if you want, like a chameleon. . . . 106 I was thinking last night when I was working on my argument that of all the witnesses that have testified and how he had changed what he had told previously to meet or to mesh in with what these people were saying . . . . 107 Petitioner contends this argument was improper. He also finds fault with the following commentary on the coroner's testimony: 108 Dr. Cox testified in this case. He is an expert witness, and in this case an exceptional expert witness. His testimony was - and you saw him here on the witness stand say it and demonstrate it - that the cuts, first of all, were caused by a knife, not by glass. 109 . . . . 110 And I guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen, if that was incorrect, if that was a disputable opinion, these defense attorneys would have had another expert or two or three or four testify in this case and tell you that, and there is not one that came forward. 111 According to petitioner, this commentary unlawfully attempted to shift the burden of proof to him. 112 This circuit has explicitly held that, If a defendant testifies . . . , a prosecutor may attack his credibility to the same extent as any other witness. United States v. Francis, 170 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing cases). Of course, such commentary must be supported by reasonable inferences from the record and not simply represent the prosecutor's own opinion. Id. Here, there is no dispute that petitioner's testimony changed. Hence, the chameleon comment fell within the bounds of permissible comment. 113 While the prosecutor's remark concerning petitioner's lack of an expert to refute the coroner's testimony may have been ill-advised, one cannot say that the impropriety was so flagrant that it require[s] reversal because only a new trial could correct the error. Id. at 552.