Opinion ID: 2648037
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reference to Jagged Edge

Text: The prosecutor began his closing argument by quoting the actor Jeff Bridges‟ character from the movie Jagged Edge: “So you think I killed my wife. Prove it.” (App. at A1565.) The prosecutor noted that Bridges‟ character was in fact guilty of killing his wife but observed that “the way our system is set up, and rightly so, if someone is … charged with a crime, … [h]e has a right to say I‟m not guilty and, Government, you have to prove it.” (App. at A1566.) Costa argues on appeal that the reference to Bridges‟ character in Jagged Edge “cast a specter over the entire closing” by implying that “defendants are guilty as charged but that they sometimes force the government to „prove it‟ in the charade of a trial.” (Appellant‟s Opening Br. at 26). The government counters that the prosecutor made the reference to Jagged Edge simply “to illustrate several points about the criminal justice process.” (Appellee‟s Br. at 43.) Costa cites United States v. Kincannon, 567 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2009), in which the government, in its closing argument, made an analogy to the movie The Godfather to explain to the jury that it would try to tie together the events of the underlying crime 6 much like director Francis Ford Coppola did in various scenes depicting assassinations coordinated by the character Michael Corleone. Id. at 896. Costa focuses on the Seventh Circuit‟s observation in dicta that, had “the government compared [the defendant] to … Corleone, an organized crime kingpin responsible for murders and a whole host of other criminal activity[,] [s]uch an analogy would be utterly unmoored from the record … .” Id. at 900 (citation omitted). Despite that comment, the Kincannon court held that the “reference to The Godfather [did] not approach impropriety” because the government used the movie to “explain[] to the jury that [it] would try to do orally what Coppola did in his film – that is, tie together the events that occurred … into one seamless story.” Id. Similarly, the prosecutor‟s remarks in this case can be understood as not directly comparing Costa with Bridges‟ character in Jagged Edge but instead referencing the movie to exemplify Costa‟s right to claim his innocence and require the government to prove his guilt. The prosecutor emphasized to the jury that, despite Costa‟s admissions, it “still [had] to prove” Counts I, II, and III, and that it would explain “why [it] [had] shown … that [Costa] is in fact guilty of Count [IV] also.” (App. at A1567.) Thus, while unnecessary, the reference to Jagged Edge was consistent with the government‟s burden of proof, and it was not plain error for the District Court to see it as less than misconduct.