Opinion ID: 611873
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Roger L. Rodney

Text: 10 Defendant Rodney contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the government's improper vouching for the credibility of Galvin Bonner, a government witness who fingered Rodney as his cocaine supplier. Rodney points to three occasions during the government's closing argument in which government counsel improperly vouched for the credibility of Bonner. The first incident occurred when government counsel made the following statements to the jury: 11 Now the defense is going to get up and say Galvin Bonner should not be believed ... 12 ... and the court has the ability to sentence [Bonner] lower than that, but that individual is facing 15 years to life, and he got up there and told you what happened. He told you the truth. He didn't try to make anybody look worse or make anybody look better. He just tried to tell you what happened. 13 And when you look at his testimony, consider how it is supported by other evidence. Consider how it is corroborated. Corroboration, that is the key. How is Galvin Bonner's testimony corroborated by other evidence, by other testimony? When you consider that, you will see that it is corroborated up to the hilt. 14 Rodney's counsel made no objection. The second incident occurred during the government's rebuttal, when government counsel made the following statement: 15 Let's look at Galvin Bonner. Again, he pled to the two most serious charges in his indictment. Ten years to life and five years that has to be served consecutively. Yes, the other charges were dismissed. Zero to 20, zero to 25, 5 to 40. Would they add any time? I would submit to you, no, ladies and gentlemen. He pled to the most serious charges, 15 to life. What a deal. And if he gets a couple of years off that, that is a great deal, too. 16 But he came in and he told you the truth, he told you what-- 17 Rodney's immediate objection was sustained, and the district court instructed the jury, you will determine what the truth is in the case. Government counsel then continued with his rebuttal, making what Rodney argues is the third improper statement: 18 I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that Galvin Bonner was a credible witness. 19 Rodney's second objection was then overruled. Rodney moved to strike this last statement, and asked the court to declare a mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court denied the motions and allowed the prosecutor to continue with his argument. 20 A government attorney has a duty not to express a personal opinion or belief regarding the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence. United States v. Hurst, 951 F.2d 1490, 1502 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1952 (1992). Initially, in determining whether such misconduct may form a basis for reversal, a threshold determination must be made whether government counsel's comments can be reasonably construed to be based on personal belief. United States v. Bess, 593 F.2d 749, 756 (6th Cir.1979). Even if the statement may be construed to be based on personal belief, no per se rule of reversible error applies. Rather, this Court will reverse a conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct only if the resulting prejudice permeates the entire trial. United States v. Castro, 908 F.2d 85, 89 (6th Cir.1990); United States v. Krebs, 788 F.2d 1166, 1177 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930 (1986). [T]he complained-of conduct will not rise to reversible error ... if it is not flagrant, where proof of guilt is over-whelming, where counsel does not object and/or where the trial judge steps in and admonishes the jury. Bess, 593 F.2d at 757. 21 When viewed in context, government counsel's third comment--I submit to you ... that Galvin Bonner is a credible witness--cannot reasonably be construed to be based on personal belief. This Court has previously held that the use of the words, I submit is not the equivalent of expressing a personal opinion. United States v. Stulga, 584 F.2d 142, 147 (6th Cir.1978). The same cannot be said for government counsel's other two statements--he told you the truth--which can reasonably be construed as personal vouching for Bonner's credibility, even in context. 22 The impact of vouching is undoubtedly more acute when the jury faces difficult credibility issues, as they undoubtedly did in this case. Bess, 593 F.2d at 755. However, notwithstanding the importance of Bonner's testimony, we conclude that the conduct of the government in this case was neither so egregious nor pervasive that the defendant was denied a fair trial. The misconduct cannot be characterized as severe. Notably, the government's first reference to Bonner's credibility (i.e., he told you the truth) went unchallenged, and the district court sustained the defendant's objection to virtually the same comment made during rebuttal. The district court then promptly cautioned the jurors to make their own credibility determination. This cautionary instruction to the jury, particularly when considered in conjunction with the court's instructions to the jurors at conclusion of the case 1 , negated any prejudicial effect resulting from the government's remarks. See United States v. Roberts, 986 F.2d 1026, 1032 (6th Cir.1993) (court's instructions, including instruction that [t]he lawyers' statements and arguments are not evidence, negated any prejudicial effect resulting from prosecutor's reference during closing argument to threat posed to jurors and their children by use of firearms during commission of narcotics violations). We also note that Rodney had, in essence, an opportunity to respond to the government's initial remark (which was later repeated on rebuttal) in his own closing, during which he strongly attacked Bonner's credibility and motives for testifying. Finally, we note that the jury acquitted Rodney on some of the charges against him, a relevant factor which must be taken into account in determining whether the jury was led astray by the government's remarks. Floyd v. Meachum, 907 F.2d 347, 356 (2d Cir.1990). We conclude that under the circumstances, the alleged misconduct did not deprive defendant Rodney of a fair trial.