Opinion ID: 2713861
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comment on Farrow’s failure to testify

Text: Farrow’s last alleged trial error merits more consideration. The prosecutor’s closing argument noted that Farrow did not offer any evidence of his alleged conversation with Officer Rodgers in which the officer supposedly told Farrow that he would arrest him next time. Farrow argues that this was a comment on his own failure to testify as he was the only other person who could have testified about the conversation. Defendants have the right under the Fifth Amendment not to testify and the prosecution cannot comment on a defendant’s failure to testify. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965). A prosecutor may comment on a defendant’s failure to present certain evidence as long as those comments do not implicate the defendant’s right to not testify. See Forrest, 402 F.3d at 686. This case involves an alleged indirect reference to Farrow’s decision not to testify. United States v. Moore, 917 F. 2d 215, 225 (6th Cir. 1990). This court considers four factors when determining the constitutionality of such references: -8- No. 13-5401 United States v. Christopher Farrow 1) Were the comments ‘manifestly intended’ to reflect on the accused’s silence or of such a character that the jury would ‘naturally and necessarily’ take them as such; 2) were the remarks isolated or extensive; 3) was the evidence of guilt otherwise overwhelming; 4) what curative instructions were given and when. Lent v. Wells, 861 F.2d 972, 975 (6th Cir. 1988). The caselaw on these factors suggests that satisfaction of the first factor is necessary to finding a prosecutor’s comment unconstitutional and that a “court must look at all the surrounding circumstances in determining whether or not there has been a constitutional violation.” Butler v. Rose, 686 F.2d 1163, 1170 (6th Cir. 1982) (en banc). In analyzing the factors, this court may consider the relevance to the overall case of the evidence addressed in the comment, see United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997), and whether the defendant was the only witness who could have contradicted the evidence, Robinson, 651 F.2d at 1197. Importantly, this court will not find manifest intent if another explanation is equally plausible. Lent, 861 F.2d at 975. The jury might infer from the prosecution’s statement that the only person who could rebut Officer Rodgers’s testimony was the defendant, which supports Farrow’s contention that the prosecution intended to comment on his failure to testify. However, another intent is equally plausible. Id. Because Officer Rodgers was one of only three witnesses testifying that Farrow had a gun, his credibility was important to the prosecution’s case. The prosecutor prefaced his closing comments about the alleged conversation by stating that the defense questions were intended to damage Officer Rodgers’s credibility. The defense questions were the only reference to this supposed conversation in the entire case, and since Officer Rodgers denies this -9- No. 13-5401 United States v. Christopher Farrow conversation, no evidence of it exists in the record. Thus, the prosecutor’s comments are plausibly explained as an effort to protect Officer Rodgers’s credibility by pointing out that Farrow offered no evidence of the alleged interaction. Moreover, “the question is not whether the jury possibly or even probably would view the remark in this manner, but whether the jury necessarily would have done so.” Ursery, 109 F.3d at 1135. A jury would not have necessarily taken the remarks as a comment on Farrow’s silence because both the questioning and the prosecutor’s remarks were vague and the remarks may have related to credibility. The prosecutor’s comment was not manifestly intended to comment on Farrow’s failure to testify. The weight of the other factors also supports the Government. Here, the prosecution made only one, relatively unemphasized remark that could be considered a reference to Farrow’s failure to testify. See Raper v. Mintzes, 706 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983). Though the court did not address the remark at the time, it did give a thorough jury instruction that the defendant was not required to take the stand and that his failure to do so could not be held against him. While the ideal curative instruction is one that directly references improper comments, this is not required to make the curative instruction effective. See Lent, 861 F.2d at 977 (noting that the court gave a general instruction but did not specifically mention the improper comments). Finally, the evidence against Farrow was strong. Three witnesses testified that they saw Farrow with the gun. And though Officer Rodgers’s testimony was relatively important to the overall case, this alleged conversation did not address any evidence essential to the case. Analysis of the four factors establishes no error. Had error occurred, Farrow’s argument could not survive plain-error review because none of the claimed errors substantially affected his rights. The three trial errors alleged do not render Farrow’s conviction reversible. -10- No. 13-5401 United States v. Christopher Farrow