U.S. v. Klemis

In prosecution on series of drug distribution charges, prosecutor did not commit plain error during closing argument, when he relegated defendant to innermost circle of hell as depicted in Dante’s Inferno. While prosecutor’s reference to Dante’s Inferno constituted improper appeal to jury’s passion rather than to reason or evidence, outcome of trial was not affected by said reference, where multiple witnesses described defendant’s heroin trafficking in substantial detail, as well as linked defendant’s text and phone records to dose of heroin that was involved in victim’s fatal overdose. Moreover, prosecutor’s observation during closing argument that “heroin kills” was reasonable inference of evidence in record, while prosecutor’s comments that specific witness was “straight citizen” and “not an addict” did not constitute improper vouching, but rather were statements based on undisputed evidence. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting deceased victim’s statement that he stole jewelry as means to pay debt to defendant, since said statement was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) as statement against victim’s penal interest.