United States v. Veal

Citations: 797 F. Supp. 527; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13550; 1992 WL 215131Docket: Crim. A. No. 92-10-B

Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana; September 3, 1992; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court addressed a motion for mistrial filed by the defendants, who argued that the Assistant United States Attorney improperly referenced the defendants' right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment during closing arguments. The Court reviewed the transcript of the argument and noted that the defendants did not object to the comments at the time they were made. Consequently, the defendants waived their right to contest the argument. Even if there was no waiver, the Court applied the plain error doctrine and found no grounds for granting a mistrial. It determined that the prosecutor did not directly reference the defendants’ failure to testify, and any comments made were not manifestly intended to highlight this failure nor would the jury interpret them as such. The Court clarified that while the prosecutor's remarks were unnecessary, they did not violate the defendants’ rights. The distinction was made between commenting on the defense's failure to counter evidence versus the defendant's failure to testify, with the latter being a violation of Fifth Amendment rights. In this case, the comments were deemed careless but not improper.

The prosecutor's argument was deemed a legitimate response to the defense's claims that others were responsible for the misuse of food stamps. The defense posited various points, including that other individuals prepared documents, used the defendants' computer access numbers, and that food stamp employees had improper access to systems and materials. Specific allegations included the involvement of Roscoe Jones' girlfriend and systemic negligence within the food stamp program in East Baton Rouge. The closing arguments by defense attorneys emphasized these points.

In light of the defense's assertions, the prosecutor's comments were found not to be improper. The court concluded that the defendants' rights were not infringed upon, as no references were made to their failure to testify. Despite any potential errors in the prosecutor's closing remarks, the overwhelming evidence of guilt rendered such errors harmless. The trial spanned four days, with more than two and a half hours of arguments, and the prosecutor's comments were brief.

The jury received comprehensive instructions affirming the presumption of innocence and the government's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor reiterated this principle in rebuttal, clarifying that the defendants bore no burden to prove their innocence. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has established that reversal of a conviction based on a prosecutor's arguments requires evidence that the remarks were both improper and harmful, with a focus on whether they undermined the jury's verdict.

The circuit applies a three-part test to assess the impact of prejudicial statements made during trial: 1) the severity of the prejudicial effect; 2) the effectiveness of any cautionary instructions given to the jury; and 3) the overall strength of the evidence against the defendant. Upon reviewing the trial record, the Court concludes that the prosecutor's comments did not significantly taint the trial atmosphere. Consequently, the defendants' request for a mistrial or a new trial is denied. It is noted that a prosecutor's direct mention of a defendant's failure to testify breaches the defendant's right against self-incrimination, as established in multiple precedential cases.