Opinion ID: 67706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Closing Arguments and Cumulative Error

Text: Where, as here, a defendant does not object to comments made by the prosecution at trial, the standard of review is plain error. United States v. Hernandez, 921 F.2d 1569, 1573 (11th Cir. 1991). To justify reversal under this standard, the error must be “so obvious that failure to correct it would jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial.” United States v. Mock, 523 F.3d 1299, 1302 (11th Cir. 2008). “The sole purpose of closing argument is to assist the jury in analyzing the evidence.” United States v. Iglesias, 915 F.2d 1524, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990). 4 “While a prosecutor may not exceed the evidence in closing argument, he may state conclusions drawn from the evidence.” United States v. Bailey, 123 F.3d 1381, 1400 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). A prosecutor is not prohibited from making “colorful and perhaps flamboyant” remarks if they relate to the evidence adduced at trial. Id.; see also United States v. Frazier, 944 F.2d 820, 827-28 (11th Cir. 1991) (“A prosecutor may even describe a defense as ‘absurd’ and ‘a big fake’ as long as the trial record supports the prosecutor’s comments.”). The prosecution may not “place the prestige of the government behind a witness by making explicit personal assurances of the witness’s veracity or by indicating that information not presented to the jury supports the testimony.” Hernandez, 921 F.2d at 1573. “The prohibition against vouching does not forbid prosecutors from arguing credibility, which may be central to the case; rather, it forbids arguing credibility based on the reputation of the government office or on evidence not before the jury.” Id. We review for an abuse of discretion a party’s argument that a series of errors by the district court, when viewed cumulatively, denied the party a fair trial. Mock, 523 F.3d at 1302. The cumulative error doctrine “provides that an aggregation of non-reversible errors (i.e., plain errors failing to necessitate reversal and harmless errors) can yield a denial of the constitutional right to a fair 5 trial, which calls for reversal.” United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1223 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “The harmlessness of cumulative error is determined by conducting the same inquiry as for individual error–courts look to see whether the defendant’s substantial rights were affected.” Id. (quotation omitted). Here, the statements made by the prosecutor were within the realm of acceptable comments made in closing argument. The prosecutor’s comments on the veracity of the police officers was based on an attack on their credibility and did not invoke the prestige of the government. Additionally, his statements about Glover’s rationale for fleeing were proper comments on the evidence. There was no plain error.