Opinion ID: 203982
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comments by Prosecutor at Closing Argument

Text: Niemi argues that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecution commented during closing arguments on Niemi's refusal to testify. The allegedly improper statements occurred when the prosecution discussed the matter of code words used to refer to drugs, in anticipation of the defendants' arguments that no code words had been used. The prosecutor referred to phone recording # 1975, a conversation between Mercier and Michaud, who was Niemi's co-defendant. In this conversation, Michaud asked Mercier, How's life? and Mercier responded that it was expensive because his friend was in Greece. According to the prosecution, Michaud was referring to Niemi's primary supplier of drugs, who was on vacation in Greece at the time of the conversation. In the closing argument, the prosecution told the jury, [S]ee how [the defense attorneys] address the evidence I've addressed. How do they address call [number] 1975? How does [Michaud's attorney] say that his client, that how's life, expensive, is not cocaine? At no point in these statements did the prosecution make reference to Niemi's failure to testify. In pointing out the defense's failure to respond to the government's evidence, the prosecution referred not to Niemi, but to his co-defendant's attorney. As we have previously noted, the prosecutor is entitled to draw the jury's attention to the balance of evidence on contested issues. After all, putting on the government's case is a sort of compulsion of the defendant to answer it; and the government must also be free to engage in normal advocacy so long as it does not point a finger at the accused's remaining silent in the courtroom. United States v. Stroman, 500 F.3d 61, 65 (1st Cir.2007) (quoting United States ex rel. Leak v. Follette, 418 F.2d 1266, 1268 (2d Cir.1969)). The prosecutor did not overstep these bounds by arguing to the jury that the defense could not rebut the prosecution's evidence on the use of code words. Furthermore, even if the district court had erred in failing to strike the prosecutor's statement, the error would have been harmless. Immediately after the prosecution's closing argument was finished, the court reminded the jury that the Government has the burden of proving all elements of this case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants don't have to prove anything and the defendants don't have to explain anything. The prosecutor's statement was isolated and was quickly followed by a cautionary instruction, and there was little chance that Niemi suffered any prejudice as a result. Thus, there is no need to overturn the conviction. See United States v. Joyner, 191 F.3d 47, 54 (1st Cir.1999).