Opinion ID: 151911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adverse Inference During Closing Argument

Text: Mitchell argues that the district court abused its discretion by preventing him from suggesting to the jury that it draw a missing witness adverse inference against the government. He wanted to argue during closing argument that the government's decision not to call Inspector Davis to testify cast doubt upon the veracity of Witt's testimony. We review for abuse of discretion a district court's ruling on the propriety of a missing witness adverse inference. Smith v. Copeland, 87 F.3d 265, 269 (8th Cir.1996). To constitute reversible error, the district court's prohibition of an adverse inference argument must have resulted in injury or prejudice. Id. The government stated that Inspector Davis was available to testify if Mitchell so wanted; Mitchell declined the government's invitation. Thus, an adverse inference argument based upon a missing witness was inappropriate. See United States v. Cole, 380 F.3d 422, 427 (8th Cir.2004) (stating that in the context of jury instructions, adverse inferences from missing witnesses are not appropriate where the defense does not show that the government possesses the sole power to produce the witness). Mitchell has not shown that he suffered any injury or prejudice from the district court's decision. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling as it did.