Opinion ID: 2790833
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterization of Robbins's Testimony

Text: Foley first claims that the prosecutor misstated the testimony of Sean Robbins in his closing argument. Although [t]he law is clear that a prosecutor's reliance (or apparent reliance) upon matters not in evidence is improper, United States v. Auch, 187 F.3d 125, 129 (1st Cir. 1999), we find no inaccuracy in the challenged remarks and thus no misconduct. On direct examination, Robbins testified that he had expressed concern to Foley in March 2007 over how the transactions were handled and that he had asked Foley why they were disbursing without buyer's funds. When asked how Foley had responded, Robbins answered: He said they used the disbursement authorizations -- well, he said he had found out that after -- in the second week of the Neponset closings, that buyers weren't -- hadn't been bringing checks and that he yelled at Nancy [his paralegal] about it. Again on redirect examination, Robbins was asked what Foley had told him in that conversation about whether or not he knew checks were coming. Robbins replied: He said he had found out that no checks had come, and -- about the second week, and he yelled at Nancy Molinari for disbursing, despite the fact there were no checks. -24- Ostensibly based on this testimony, the prosecutor stated the following in his closing argument: [R]emember that conversation when the defendant and Sean Robbins in March were going to get coffee? Remember what Sean Robbins told you? He was still bothered by the whole thing. He knew it was wrong, and he was bothered by it, and that's the conversation in which defendant Foley said, I knew by the second week there were no checks. Now, I submit to you that the evidence in this case and what you know from the evidence is from day one Mr. Foley knew there were not going to be any checks. But at a minimum, he has admitted to Sean Robbins that he knew there were no checks from at least the second week. In his own closing argument, defense counsel responded: Mr. Wild [the prosecutor] tells you during his closing argument that Sean Robbins testified that Mr. Foley told him in March that he had known in December that no checks were forthcoming. . . . I respectfully submit to you . . . Mr. Robbins never testified that Mr. Foley had told him in December that he knew no checks were forthcoming. . . . Neither Mr. Robbins nor Ms. Molinari ever testified that Mr. Foley ever indicated between December 19th and January 12th that no checks would be brought to the law office at the conclusion of the closings. The prosecutor then stated in rebuttal: You were told that Mr. Robbins didn't testify about that conversation on the way to get coffee in March and what Mr. Foley said to him. If you took notes, I would suggest you look near the end of Mr. Robbins' testimony. I believe it's on Ms. Lei's redirect questioning of him. Look for what was said there. -25- Following the government's rebuttal, Foley objected that the prosecutor had misstated the evidence and added evidence to the case by stating that Mr. Robbins testified that Mr. Foley knew in December of 2006 that no funds would be forthcoming. The district court expressed its concern at that time about the reference to when Mr. Robbins supposedly got an admission from Mr. Foley as to whether he knew and when he knew that the funds were not forthcoming. Accordingly, the court instructed the jury that the lawyers' statements were not evidence and that the jury's memory of the evidence controlled, using this particular dispute as an illustration. After the verdict, Foley moved for a new trial on the basis of the government's alleged misrepresentation, which he claimed was fatal to his defense that he believed in good faith that checks were forthcoming. Finding no inaccuracies in the government's closing and rebuttal, the district court denied the motion. The court found the prosecutor's statement that Foley said, I knew by the second week that there were no checks wholly consistent with Robbins's underlying testimony that Foley said he had found out that no checks had come by the second week. Although the prosecutor proceeded to state that the evidence in this case and what you know from the evidence is from day one Mr. Foley knew there were not going to be any checks, the court emphasized that that remark did not purport to rest solely on -26- Robbins's testimony but rather on all of the evidence in the case, including Reed's testimony that Foley had prepared the disbursement authorization forms in December 2006 to paper the file. The court concluded that Foley's claim of misconduct was especially puzzling in light of the fact that it was defense counsel who misstated the government's arguments to the jury, erroneously asserting that government counsel had said that Robbins had testified that Foley admitted that he knew in December no checks were forthcoming. We agree with the district court's cogent analysis. Contrary to Foley's assertions, the government did not indicate that Mr. Foley told Mr. Robbins that he knew by the second week that no checks were forthcoming, only that Foley knew by the second week that there were no checks, in keeping with Robbins's testimony that Foley had found out that no checks had come. In proceeding to suggest that Foley knew from day one that no checks were forthcoming, the prosecutor relied on different evidence, as his next remark implied: But at a minimum, [Foley] has admitted to Sean Robbins that he knew there were no checks from at least the second week. The government's argument was thus that even if the jury did not infer from the other evidence in this case that Foley knew all along that no checks were forthcoming, Robbins's testimony indicated that Foley at least knew by the second week -27- that no checks had come. That is in no way a mischaracterization of Robbins's testimony.11