Opinion ID: 172342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Detective Frost's Credibility Vouching

Text: During the direct examination of Detective Troy Ryan Frost, Floyd's counsel did not object when Frost was asked about whether he believed certain statements Floyd made to him. Frost said that Floyd told him he loved C.A., and that he had visited the trailer on the afternoon of her disappearance. These two facts are important, because they gave Floyd motive and opportunity. The objectionable trial testimony between the prosecutor and Frost about Frost's conversation with Floyd is as follows: [Prosecutor]: When [Floyd] said that he had gone to the trailer that day did you believe him? [Frost]: I believed him. [Prosecutor]: What he was indicating to you through your questions and his statement how he felt about her was, you think he was being genuine? [Frost]: Oh yes. ROA, Vol. III, at 511. It is improper for a witness to vouch for the credibility of someone else's statement. Credibility determinations are within the province of the jury. United States v. Toledo, 985 F.2d 1462, 1470 (10th Cir.1993) (explaining that the credibility of witnesses is not an appropriate subject for expert testimony because it usurps a critical function of the jury, is not helpful to the jury, which can make its own determination of credibility, and may be prejudicial and unduly influence[] the jury). The Kansas Supreme Court and the federal district court both found that Floyd's counsel's failure to object to this testimony was unreasonable. The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that Kurth was objectively unreasonable for failing to object to Frost's credibility vouching: Kurth did not object to this questioning and testified at the [habeas] hearing that he could not recall any strategic reason for not doing so. Floyd is correct; this was objectionable testimony that invaded the province of the jury. 283 Kan. at 98, 150 P.3d 868. However, the Kansas Supreme Court found that this testimony was not prejudicial because it involved such a small part of the evidence presented and, even if Frost's objectionable statements had been omitted, the jury still would have heard Floyd's statements [as reported by Detective Frost] that [Floyd] went to the trailer the day C.A. disappeared and that [Floyd] loved her. Id. at 106, 150 P.3d 868. The federal district court disagreed, stating that the Kansas Supreme [C]ourt again ignored the emphasis placed by the prosecutor in closing argument upon [Floyd's] alleged `love' for C.A. as a motive for the crime. Mem. and Order at 34. However, the Kansas Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable for concluding that Frost's credibility vouching was not prejudicial to Floyd. Frost's credibility vouching was a very small part of the evidence presented, and, thus, there is not a reasonable probability that, but for the credibility vouching, Floyd would not have been found guilty. We note that Floyd does not challenge Frost's credibility when he testified that Floyd got real emotional and then told him he went to the trailer that day, and that he loved C.A. ROA, Vol. III, at 510. Additionally, as the state argued, Frost's statements did not concern Tom's credibility, which was the single most decisive factor for the jury to consider. Aplt. Br. at 33. The Kansas Supreme Court's determination that this deficiency was not prejudicial is not objectively unreasonable under the AEDPA's standards.