Opinion ID: 165426
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Outstanding COA Applications

Text: As noted above, Buchanan’s application for a COA with regard to his prosecutorial misconduct claim is currently before this court. A COA can issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Prosecutorial misconduct does not warrant federal habeas relief unless the conduct complained of is so egregious as to render the entire proceedings against the defendant fundamentally unfair.” Smallwood v. Gibson , 191 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir. 1999). In making this determination, “we consider the totality of the circumstances, evaluating the prosecutor’s conduct in the context of the whole trial.” Id. at 1276. (quotation omitted). Specifically, “we look first at the strength of the evidence against the defendant and decide whether the prosecutor’s [conduct] plausibly could have tipped the scales in favor of the prosecution.” Id. (quotation omitted). As summarized by the district court, Buchanan claims that he was denied a fair trial due to the following prosecutorial misconduct: Petitioner claims that during closing argument, the prosecutor made comments . . . leading the jury to speculate that [petitioner] may have -21- shot, or even killed one or both victims [of the robbery], had it not been for the failure of the gun to fire. In addition, Petitioner complains that the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument led the jury to give “short [shrift]” to the issue of guilt. Lastly, Petitioner complains that the prosecutor referred more than once to the evidence as “uncontroverted,” thereby commenting improperly on his right to remain silent and to not testify at trial. Fed. Ct. R., Doc. 49 at 12 (citations omitted). Having carefully reviewed the transcript of the trial proceedings, we agree with the district court that, “even assuming that the specific instances of alleged misconduct identified [by Buchanan] were improper, the prosecutor’s misconduct was not of sufficient magnitude to influence the jury’s decision. In this case, the evidence of [Buchanan’s] guilt was overwhelming.” Id. at 13. Buchanan is therefore not entitled to a COA on his prosecutorial misconduct claim.