U.S. v. Briseno

In prosecution on racketeering charges arising out of defendant’s involvement in street gang, defendant was not entitled to new trial, even though defendant argued that prosecutor committed several errors during his closing arguments, where prosecutor: (1) improperly referred to evidence that pertained to charge that defendant had previously been acquitted; (2) improperly shifted burden of proof by stating that jury could not acquit defendant while finding govt. witnesses to be truthful; and (3) improperly vouched for govt. witnesses by stating that said witnesses were truthful because they gave only limited testimony regarding their knowledge of operative facts of charged offenses. Prosecutor could refer to facts regarding offense that defendant had been acquitted, because said facts were relevant to resolution of remaining charged offenses. Moreover, while prosecutor erred in suggesting that jury could not acquit defendant and believe substance of govt. witnesses’ testimonies, defendant failed to show that said comment denied him fair trial, where jury was given curative instructions that properly stated burden of proof, and where evidence against defendant was overwhelming. Also, prosecutor did not improperly vouch for govt. witnesses since operative comments appealed only to jury’s notion of common sense and pertained to evidence in record from which truthfulness of govt. witnesses could be inferred.