Opinion ID: 712827
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecution's remark: I believe Jacqueline Rodgers when she testified.

Text: 42 This statement constituted vouching on the prosecution's part, as the government readily concedes. As Thierman did specifically object to this comment, we review it for harmless error. We look to several factors, including: (a) the form of the vouching; (b) how much the prosecutor implicated that her belief is supported by extra-record knowledge; (c) the degree of personal opinion asserted; and (d) the importance of the testimony to the case. Williams, 989 F.2d at 1072. 43 Here, while the prosecutor impermissibly asserted her personal opinion, there was no implication of extra-record knowledge and the testimony was of minor importance. 3 Therefore, we find the error harmless, and mention the matter only to caution counsel to avoid the error in the event of retrial. 44 Thierman's brief, perhaps in an excess of caution, assigns error to numerous other parts of the prosecution's final argument as alleged vouching. We have examined all of them and find them within the permissible range of argument and persuasion without the vice of suggesting that the lawyer knows from sources outside the record that the particular witness is more to be believed than witnesses of the defendant. 45 In order to constitute vouching, a statement must place the prestige of the government behind a witness through personal assurance for the witness's veracity, or suggest that information not presented to the jury supports the witness' testimony. Necoechea, 986 F.2d at 1276. These comments did neither. 46