Opinion ID: 49142
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Plea for Law Enforcement.

Text: Horace points to the following passage from the prosecutor’s argument: Now in situations like these in cases like this where you’re brought the facts that we have in this case, facts that clearly show the defendant is guilty of what he did, when that situation occurs, you people are the only folks in this courtroom who can actually enforce the law. The police officers, all they can do is arrest people. They can investigate people. We can prosecute people, but in the end when you’re given facts that show[s] somebody guilty, you’re the only folks who can ultimately enforce the law– Defense counsel immediately objected and the court sustained the objection and gave the jury a careful cautionary instruction.3 We are satisfied that any suggestion of impropriety was cured by the district court’s cautionary instruction. See United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203, 211 (5th Cir. 2002). 3 Ladies and gentlemen, your job is to serve as judges of the facts. The only thing that is relevant to you is, has the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt in all of your minds that the defendant knowingly possessed the weapon involved. That’s the issue. And you don’t have an obligation to be out there as a posse or law enforcement group. You don’t have an obligation to do anything but determine what the government has or has not proven. So you may disregard–you must disregard any appeal about you enforcing the law. Your job is to apply the law that I have given you. You have an oath to do that. The oath requires that you consider the elements that I have explained to you and the evidence that has been presented to you after you weigh the evidence and decide who you believe and what importance to give that evidence. 8 2. Alleged improper attack on Horace’s character. In the initial segment of the prosecutor’s closing argument he suggested that a defense witness, Lisa Sherman, had a motive to lie. Lisa Sherman lived in the apartment complex where the arrests were made and testified as an eyewitness to a version of events very different from that described by the police. The prosecutor stated: Maybe she might be a little afraid of those folks? She’s got kids. Maybe she might be afraid. Maybe she might want to come in here–she’s asked to come and testify. Do you think she’s willing to come in here and say, “He had a gun. They’re bad.” And all that? No. She has a motive not to tell the truth. She has a motive in it? No. Whatever you think about that motive, she’s got kids. Maybe she’s trying to protect them. I don’t know, but that’s a motive for her not to tell the truth in this situation. Defense counsel interpreted the prosecutor’s argument as suggesting that Sherman was afraid of Red. When the prosecutor made the final segment of his closing argument, he responded to this by saying two experienced police officers had no reason to lie and there is no evidence they lied. He then stated: But there is, through reasonable inference, evidence that Ms. Sherman has a reason to lie. We talked about it earlier. The defense would suggest to you that well, if the person she’s scared – the only person she should be scared of is Red. Well, who’s hanging out with Red? The defendant. Who’s not here? Red. Who’s here? The defendant, Red’s buddy, I mean, who is she going to be scared of in this courtroom? It’s going to be Mr. Horace. The prosecutor’s argument that Sherman may have harbored some 9 fear of Red and therefore of his companion Horace, is not totally unfounded. The government presented evidence that Red, who did not live in the apartment complex with Sherman, frequently visited there and that the police had been called on at least one occasion to the apartment complex because of Red’s interference with a tenant’s access to his apartment. Sherman testified that she heard Red refer to his gun while she was walking with her children and another defense witness saw Red in possession of a gun while he was at the apartment complex. The jury could have found that the witness knew that Horace and Red were associated together. No plain error is demonstrated. 3. We have made a careful review of the record in connection with Horace’s remaining arguments of improper closing argument and find no plain error was demonstrated.