Opinion ID: 68728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rogozinski Received a Fair Trial.

Text: Rogozinski argues for the first time on appeal that the district court sua 10 sponte should have declared a mistrial or ordered a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct, but we disagree. Rogozinski argues that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by cross-examining Rogozinski about whether he had suffered from cat scratch fever and arguing in closing that Rogozinski had not, but Rogozinski put his credibility at issue by testifying and the prosecutor did not respond with foul blows. The prosecutor was entitled to cross-examine Rogozinski about the name of his treating physician and any medical records to corroborate his testimony that he had suffered so debilitating an illness that Hong would have promised him millions of dollars in compensation. See United States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2009). The prosecutor also was allowed during closing argument to cast doubt on Rogozinski’s credibility and the plausibility of his defense. See United States v. Johns, 734 F.2d 657, 663 (11th Cir. 1984) (“‘The purpose of summations is for the attorneys to assist the jury in analyzing, evaluating, and applying the evidence . . . .’” and a prosecutor may “urge[] the jury to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence produced at trial.”) (quoting United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 1978)). The prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof to Rogozinski and, even if the questions or remarks had been improper, the instruction by the district court about the burden of proof ameliorated the prejudicial effect of those statements. Id. at 662. The district court 11 did not plainly err by failing to order a new trial or declare a mistrial. Rogozinski also erroneously complains that he was deprived of a fair trial because the district court, while suffering from back pain, failed to control the conduct of the prosecutor. Although the judge mentioned that his back required him to walk occasionally behind the bench and caused him to shorten deliberations one afternoon, the record does not suggest that these instances impaired the ability of the court to complete its duties or affected its impartiality. The district court did not plainly err.