Opinion ID: 778658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prosecutor's alleged comment on Garcia's failure to testify and post-arrest silence

Text: 76 Garcia argues that the district court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's alleged comment on his refusal to testify and his right to remain silent in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. We review de novo whether a prosecutor's argument is an impermissible comment on the defendant's right not to testify. 66 77 We apply a two-tiered test to [a defendant's] claim that the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify, the first tier of which is to determine whether the comments at issue were constitutionally impermissible. 67 We conclude that the prosecutor here did not make a constitutionally impermissible comment by stating: This is a circumstantial case, it's a look back in time and piecing together of evidence that Defendants didn't want you or I to discover. Garcia objected to this statement at trial, and the district court gave a cautionary instruction and overruled the objection. The prosecutor then clarified his argument to the jury by stating that, [c]learly, when people are engaged in criminal conduct, they don't want to be caught. And that's the point I'm trying to make. 78 Under these facts, the prosecutor's manifest intent was not to comment on the defendant's silence and the character of the remark was not such that the jury would naturally and necessarily construe it as a comment on the defendant's silence. 68 The more plausible explanation for the remark was that given by the prosecutor after the objection was overruled. This comment was constitutionally permissible, and we reject this point of error. 69 79