Opinion ID: 4392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Impermissible “Vouching”

Text: Defendant challenges his conviction on the ground that the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the credibility of the government’s witnesses. Because defendant did not object to the alleged vouching at trial, our review is limited to plain error. United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 682 (2d Cir. 2004). “To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show (1) error, (2) that is plain at the time of appellate review, and (3) that affects substantial rights. Where these conditions are met, we have the discretion to notice a forfeited error if (4) it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Quinones, 511 F.3d 289, 316 (2d Cir. 2007). “It is, of course, well established that the prosecution may not vouch for its witnesses’ credibility.” Newton, 369 F.3d at 681. Vouching raises two concerns. First, vouching “may prejudice a defendant by suggesting to a jury that there is additional evidence, not introduced at trial but known to the prosecutor, that supports the witness’s credibility.” Id. Second, vouching “‘carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 18-19 (1985)). 2 After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the prosecutor’s statements did not amount to impermissible vouching. Defendant challenges one statement in which the prosecutor told the jury that “you knew that [the government’s witness] was telling you the truth, nothing more, nothing less.” J.A. 56. Viewed in context, however, that statement was merely the prosecutor’s argument to the jury about what “[t]he evidence shows.” Id. Defendant also challenges statements in which the prosecutor made arguments about the witnesses’ motives for telling the truth. Those statements did not amount to vouching because they did not suggest to the jury that there was “additional evidence” in support of the witnesses’ credibility and because they were not attempts to “induce the jury to trust the Government’s judgment.” Newton, 369 F.3d at 681. Moreover, even assuming that some of the prosecutor’s statements were, in fact, impermissible vouching, defendant has not demonstrated plain error. See id. at 682. Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that his conviction should be overturned because the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for the credibility of the government’s witnesses.