Opinion ID: 3059058
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ortiz’s Closing Argument

Text: Ortiz claims that the district court erred by precluding his counsel from analogizing the government’s case to the movie Minority Report in his closing argument. Before the district court, Ortiz sought to analogize his arrest and prosecution to the “Precrime” law enforcement unit depicted in that movie that, in the words of Ortiz’s counsel, “stop[ped] people before they might commit a crime in the future and [took] them out.” On appeal, Ortiz claims that in Minority Report the government tried to arrest a person because the government “anticipated” that the person would commit a crime in the future, and that this is 23 what happened in Ortiz’s case. We review for abuse of discretion a court’s decision to limit a party’s closing argument. United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312, 1320 (11th Cir. 2008). In closing argument, a party is entitled to make all legal arguments supported by the facts. Id. However, a party may not argue inaccurate or inapplicable theories of law. Id. Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting Ortiz’s counsel from referencing Minority Report. Ortiz’s theory of law—that he was arrested only because the government “anticipated” that he would later commit a crime—was plainly inapplicable to Ortiz because it was not supported by the evidence, the government’s theory of prosecution, or even by Ortiz’s own entrapment defense. The trial evidence showed that Ortiz planned to rob a marijuana grow house even before he met the undercover detective. Audio and video recordings documented Ortiz’s meetings with Rolon, the CI, the undercover detective, and codefendant Dimolino and illustrated their resulting conspiracy to rob the detective’s fictitious stash house. Authorities recovered guns, ammunition, and police paraphernalia from Rolon’s car (in which Ortiz was riding) after the pair were arrested on the way to the robbery. This evidence showed that Ortiz was arrested only after committing the crimes for which he was charged. 24 Ortiz claims that he was trying to argue only that the government cannot arrest people for crimes they have not yet committed. But this argument is inapplicable to Ortiz’s entrapment defense, which presumes that the defendant has committed the charged crime. Even if this argument were applicable to Ortiz’s defense, the record shows that Ortiz’s counsel remained free to make this argument without reference to Minority Report. Indeed, after the district court sustained the government’s objection to the movie analogy, Ortiz’s counsel argued to the jury that “the Government used a plan that . . . was to take Mr. Ortiz from the community because the prediction under their scenario was he eventually . . . would commit a crime in the future.” “That,” he explained, “is entrapment.”