Opinion ID: 668541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Vouching for Rodriguez

Text: 52 We have repeatedly warned prosecutors that they should avoid interjecting their personal beliefs into their summations, United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d at 1328, or vouch[ing] for their witnesses' truthfulness, United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d 1173, 1179 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 989, 102 S.Ct. 2269, 73 L.Ed.2d 1284 (1982). Though the occasional use of rhetorical devices may be fair argument, we have emphasized that prosecutors should avoid frequent[ ] use [of] rhetorical statements punctuated with excessive use of the personal pronoun 'I', United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d at 1328, in phrases such as  'I think it is clear,'  or  'Does it make sense--I think it does,'  id. at 1328, or  'I'm here to tell you that Mr. Amato's testimony ... is truthful,'  United States v. Modica, 663 F.2d at 1178. Such phrasing is inappropriate because the prosecution tends to ma[ke] an issue of [its] own credibility, United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 884 (2d Cir.1992) (quoting United States v. Drummond, 481 F.2d 62, 64 (2d Cir.1973)), or to impl[y] the existence of extraneous proof, United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983). Nonetheless, we must evaluate the challenged remarks in the context of the trial as a whole, for the government is allowed to respond to argument that impugns its integrity or the integrity of its case. Id. at 60-61. Thus, when the defense has attacked the prosecutor's credibility or the credibility of the government agents, the prosecutor is entitled to reply with 'rebutting language suitable to the occasion.'  United States v. Praetorius, 622 F.2d 1054, 1060-61 (2d Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. LaSorsa, 480 F.2d 522, 526 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 855, 94 S.Ct. 157, 38 L.Ed.2d 105 (1973)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 860, 101 S.Ct. 162, 66 L.Ed.2d 76 (1980). 53 In the present case, Rivera's summation repeatedly accused the government of having fabricated Rodriguez's testimony. For example, Rivera's counsel argued that 54 [w]hen she testified she was scripted ... like in all good plays I should say there has got to be a little bit of a prompt.... 55 Why do you need and ask the prosecutor this, why do you need to see an individual a hundred to two hundred times in your office? What could you possibly say in all that time that you're not going to alter? 56 (Tr. 1410-11.) Counsel also suggested that the government had not called Rodriguez as a grand jury witness because it did not like the way her testimony would have emerged at that time and needed time to have it changed. 57 In response to these attacks, the AUSA urged the jury to believe Rodriguez, arguing, for example, that she was not playing a game up there, ladies and gentlemen.... She did whatever she could to tell the truth (id. 1439); that [s]he had the demeanor of a person who told the truth (id. 1441); and that [s]he got up there and told the truth. I submit to you that is the interpretation of what Gladys Rodriguez did, and that is the correct one (id. 1442). In light of the defense summation, the government's rebuttal was not impermissible. 58