Opinion ID: 219991
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: ANALYSIS The First Statement

Text: We begin with the first statement: There's been no suggestion that it was planted there. Simply put, there is nothing improper about this statement. By his own admission, Salley's defense theory was that Skyla framed him  obtaining and planting the gun herself. Defense counsel's closing reflected this theory. [5] Additionally, Salley presented the testimony of Rebecca Hughes, who purchased the Smyrna Mills home and moved boxes in prior to Salley's arrest. Obviously Salley's purpose in calling this witness was to imply that the gun was amongst Hughes' boxed possessions. By advancing these two theories, Salley opened the door to the statement at issue. The government is permitted to comment on the plausibility of the theory that Skyla or Hughes planted the gun. See United States v. Glover, 558 F.3d 71, 78 (1st Cir.2009). When commenting on the tenability of a defense theory, the prosecutor must focus on what the evidence has or hasn't shown, rather than on the defendant and what he or she has shown or failed to show. Id. Here the prosecutor, referencing the defense trial theory, did just that by saying [t]here's been no suggestion... See United States v. Wilkerson, 411 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.2005) (finding prosecutor's remark that there's no real evidence would likely be construed by a jury to refer to defendant's failure to produce evidence supporting his theory, as opposed to his failure to testify). This court has previously been reluctant to find plain error when a prosecutor's remarks are made to rebut an argument by defense counsel and are commensurate with that purpose. See United States v. Taylor, 54 F.3d 967, 978 (1st Cir.1995). Considering the above and given the high standard for plain error, we find no plain error with respect to the first statement.