Court Opinion

ID: 9472668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:06:54.941527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:03.871914
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the affirmance of the convictions and concur in all parts of the opinion except Part III-C, which holds that the government’s rebuttal argument was proper under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.1. I agree with the majority that the appellants were not entitled to surrebuttal argument, but my reason is based upon the district court’s remedying the prosecutor’s improper argument. Objection was made by the appellants to the prosecutor’s argument on the ground that the argument was not in rebuttal, but was instead an opening argument. The trial court held a side-bar conference (Tr. at 1791-1800). The following are some samples of the district court’s remarks about the prosecutor’s argument:
THE COURT: The biggest point now that you [appellants] make and it is a good one, Mr. Taylor is in fact again waiting for rebuttal to make his primary argument, whether he knows it or not or whether he has done it for 20 years or not or whether other judges don’t know it or not, that is what he is doing.
MR. TAYLOR: I do not understand it.
THE COURT: I know you do not understand. I well know you do not understand because you like to hold back and have the last shot because that is your operation.
Tr. at 1793.
* * * * * *
THE COURT: Counselor, I understand that you are not intentionally doing that. This is something that you really, you really do not grasp.
Tr. at 1795.
THE COURT: You are going to go ahead, but I am telling you right now that I am not going to embarrass counsel by interrupting you, as long as you are arguing rebuttal, you get to argue it.
MR. TAYLOR: It would not be a fair—
THE COURT: When you get off of it and go into initial government argument which is not made on direct, I personally am going to stop you. All right?
MR. TAYLOR: All right.
Tr. at 1797.
Thereafter the court on a number of occasions had to interrupt the prosecutor to inform him that his argument was not within the ambit of the rule which permits only rebuttal in the government's closing argument.
Thus, I conclude that the appellants were not harmed because the district court responded to their objections and prevented the prosecutor from his numerous efforts to make an opening statement on rebuttal. I write this special concurrence so that government counsel is aware that affirmance, insofar as I am concerned, is not based upon a belief that the government was attempting to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.1, but instead is based on a belief that the trial court’s constant attention to the argument preserved it from reversible error. The district court should not have been put to this task by the government. The rule is very clear and upon considering it, the House Judiciary Committee commented:
The Committee believes that ... fair and effective administration of justice is best served if the defendant knows the arguments actually made by the prosecution in behalf of the conviction before the defendant is faced with the decision whether to reply and what to reply.
H.R.Rep. No. 94-247.
Believing that the evidence was sufficient to convict and that the defendants received a fair trial, I have no problem in joining the majority in the affirmance.