Opinion ID: 693464
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Closing Arguments About the Sweatpants

Text: 13 The court excluded the argument to the effect that a gun would have fallen from the sweatpants as the defendant ran from the bank stating, There is no evidence of that, counsel. There is no evidence of that. You cannot argue that. RT at 175. 14 In excluding this argument, it is unclear whether the judge held that there was no evidence of the defendant wearing sweatpants, (Tory's position) or that he held there was no evidence that a person wearing sweatpants could not run carrying a gun in the waist of his pants, (the government's position). In fact, there was evidence that the defendant had been wearing sweatpants. The conclusion that he could not carry a gun in the waistband while running was a plausible inference that the defense should have been permitted to argue. We conclude that exclusion of the argument under either interpretation was error.IV. Surveillance Photographs 15 When Tory's attorney attempted to argue that if the government had introduced surveillance photographs it would have clarified whether Tory was wearing sweatpants, the court stated: Counsel, there is no evidence on that subject which you are arguing. Please do not do that. RT 176. 16 Again it is unclear exactly what the trial judge held was not in evidence. The judge might have believed there was no evidence as to the sweatpants. As noted, this would be erroneous. On the other hand, he might have believed there was no evidence of surveillance photographs. There was, however, the testimony of Ms. Denice A. Farrar, a bank officer who said she had seen the video of the January 12 robbery (count 1). She had on direct examination identified Tory as the person who robbed the same bank on February 3 (count 3) and February 26 (count 4). On cross-examination she gave the following testimony: 17 Q. There was a video of the January 12th robbery? 18 A. We have surveillance film and with what pictures we have on that, we were able to look and see what the camera captured. 19 Q. And have you seen those photographs? 20
21 Q. Of the January 12th robbery? 22 A. Uh-huh. 23 Q. How many pictures are there? 24 A. I don't know. I mean, it's a camera that spot checks the lobby. I couldn't tell you exactly how many there are. 25 Q. About five or ten, something like that? 26 A. No, fewer than that. 27 Q. Fewer than that? 28 A. Yes. 29 Q. About three pictures maybe? 30 A. Maybe. 31 Q. Do these pictures clearly show Mr. Tory in the bank on January the 12th? 32 MR. WHITTLESEY [Asst. U.S. Attorney]: I'm going to object on the grounds-- 33 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. 34 MR. WHITTLESEY: --It's irrelevant. It's outside the scope of the direct examination. 35 MS. BARRERA: May I make a proffer, Your Honor? 36 THE COURT: No. 37 RT 73-74. 38 The ruling preventing the argument relative to the photographs was an abuse of discretion. The defense should have been allowed to argue that the government's failure to produce relevant evidence within its control gives rise to an inference that the evidence would be unfavorable to it. Cf. United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9th Cir.1984); Dickinson v. United States, 203 F.2d 336, 343 (9th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 346 U.S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132 (1953).