Opinion ID: 1456355
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor's Statements During Closing Argument

Text: McClellon argues that the prosecutor improperly vouched for Christofferson's credibility during closing argument. But McClellon failed to object to the prosecutor's statement at trial. Therefore, we review for plain error. Tulk, 171 F.3d at 599. [McClellon] must therefore show that the error was plain, meaning clear or obvious; and that the error affected his substantial rights, which requires a showing that the error was prejudicial and affected the trial's outcome. Id. (internal quotations, alterations, and citation omitted). Even clear errors will only matter if a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result that might seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Id. Reversal for prosecutorial misconduct is not required unless it prejudicially affected an individual's substantial rights and deprived him of a fair trial. Id. Factors to consider in assessing prejudice include the cumulative effect of any misconduct, the strength of the properly admitted evidence, and any curative actions taken by the trial court. Id. Attempts to bolster a witness by vouching for his credibility are normally improper. United States v. Jackson, 915 F.2d 359, 361 (8th Cir.1990) (internal quotations and citation omitted). But [w]here the prosecutor, his witnesses, or the work of the government agents is attacked by defense counsel, the District Attorney is entitled to make a fair response and rebuttal. United States v. Williams, 97 F.3d 240, 246 (8th Cir.1996) (internal quotations, alteration in Williams, and citation omitted) (rejecting defendant's argument that the prosecution improperly vouched for its witnesses where the prosecutor, during closing argument, rebutted defense allegations of witness perjury by noting that the witnesses had not yet been sentenced for their roles in the conspiracy); see also United States v. Beaman, 361 F.3d 1061, 1066 (8th Cir. 2004) (holding that prosecutor did not improperly vouch for a witness's credibility when he argued that he would not risk his career to threaten a witness to get her to change her story; argument was made in rebuttal to defense argument that witness only changed her story when threatened with prosecution and granted immunity); United States v. Lee, 743 F.2d 1240, 1253 (8th Cir.1984) (Where the District Attorney's remarks are prompted by statements of defense counsel, it has been held that there is no reversible error.). In the present case, McClellon's defense counsel made the following statement during closing argument: Well, when was it that Ms. Christofferson had her meeting with the government? They went over these photographs, it was just last Saturday, so she is pretty aware of what the evidence is and what the issues are in this case and I am not accusing the government of coaching her or saying anythingtelling her what to say, but I think that you could reasonably assume that if she wants to get out of jail, she better say whatever is necessary in order to try to make sure that Mr. McClellon is convicted so that she can get her reduced sentence. In response, the government argued in rebuttal: So you can take into account her Plea Agreement and I ask you to look at those Plea Agreements and there's two sections in that Plea Agreement, Government's Exhibit 127, you can look at that when you go back, her written Plea Agreement. The defendant wants you to believe only if she testifies favorably does she qualify for a sentence reduction. You will notice a couple paragraphs in this Plea Agreement, there's one on page five which talks about her cooperation. Part of that paragraph notes that she agrees to answer all questions and will not withhold any information. She will neither attempt to protect any person or entity through false information or omission or falsely implicate any person, but she doesn't get to testify falsely to accuse someone and get the benefit of this Plea Agreement. On page six, Paragraph 15, a paragraph called Truthful Testimony. Part of that notes that the defendant agrees to tell the truth at all times whether it be during this investigation or as a witness at trial regardless who asks the questions, the prosecutor, the law enforcement agent, the judge, or the defense attorney. So while the government is not asking you not consider that Plea Agreement, it is part of it and there's no big surprise that people in jail would really like to get out early. Here, as in Williams, Beaman, and Lee, the government's rebuttal statement was made in response to defense counsel's argument that Christofferson would provide false testimony for the government in order to get a reduced sentence in her plea deal. Thus, the government could respond by asking the jury to consider the terms of the written plea agreement in assessing the truthfulness of Christofferson's testimony. The prosecutor did not express a personal opinion but instead asked the jury to consider the actual terms of the plea agreement, which was admitted into evidence. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McClellon's motion for a new trial.