Opinion ID: 202178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Opening Argument

Text: 99 Lizardo objects to three statements by the prosecution during its opening argument: 100 (1) Bello and Yturrino counted thousands of dollars in drug proceeds . . . while the defendant sat in his uniform and watched. 101 (2) Bello would brag about the quality of the cocaine, how he didn't need chemicals to cut it up, how pure it was. 102 (3) Yturrino would be on a telephone talking to his drug couriers and the defendant would chime in, `you guys are changing cars, right?' to avoid police detection. 103 The government concedes that it did not produce evidence at trial to support these three statements. Because Lizardo did not object to these statements at the close of the government's case, we review for plain error. See United States v. Wilkerson, 411 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2005). 104 Although unsupported by the evidence presented at trial, we do not find these three statements to be significantly prejudicial. Regarding the first statement, Yturrino testified that he openly gave Bello thousands of dollars in cash in Lizardo's presence. The fact that they did not actually count the money in Lizardo's presence is of minor importance. Regarding the second statement, Yturrino testified that Bello gave him a 1.5-kilogram package of cocaine in Lizardo's presence. Any statement by Bello as to the quality of the cocaine is largely irrelevant. The third statement is the most troublesome, as it directly ascribes culpable conduct to Lizardo. The statement indicates that Lizardo helped members of the conspiracy evade police investigation in one particular instance. Given that Lizardo admitted to helping Bello evade police surveillance and that officers testified that Lizardo helped Bello evade surveillance, we do not find this false statement significantly prejudicial. Other aspects of the trial also reduced the possibility of prejudice. When questioned by the government concerning the first two statements, Yturrino's testimony clearly indicated that they were false. Further, Lizardo's counsel emphasized to the jury in his closing statement that the government had made these three false statements. Since we find no prejudice, there was no plain error. United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211, 226 (1st Cir.2005).