Case o' The Week: Do The Right Thing - Mageno, Waiver, and Prosecutorial Misstatements During Closing Argument
In Maloney, the government acknowledged error – but only during an en banc argument, and only when pinned down
after a truly excruciating exchange with the Court.
Far better, it appears, for
the government to Do The Right Thing and flag error when it sees it. United States v. Mageno, 2014 WL 3893792
(9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2014), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge Berzon, joined
by Judge Fisher. Dissent by Judge Wallace.
Hon. Marsha Berzon |
Facts: Nancy Mageno’s godson dealt drugs,
and Mageno translated for him. Id. at
*1. A DEA agent heard her on a half-dozen calls, of suspicious nature – but not
expressly mentioning meth. Id. at
*1-*2. She testified at trial that she did not know her godson dealt drugs, and
her godson testified on her behalf. Id. at
*3. Over defense objection, the government was limited to one specific question
of the godson regarding his prior deportation: he was asked if he was deported
for trafficking meth. Id. at *4. From
that sole question, the government argued (repeatedly) at closing that Nancy
Mageno knew her godson had been previously
deported for meth. Id. at *3-*4. No
facts in evidence supported that argument. The defense did not object at
trial or on appeal after Mageno was convicted. Id. at *4. The first flag was when the government raised this error
in its appellate briefing. Id.
Issue(s): “[T]he government raises, as
separate error, the prosecutors’ repeated misstatements during closing argument
that [the godson] had testified to [the godson’s] deportation for dealing
drugs. Mageno did not object to the government’s misstatement of [her godson’s]
testimony at trial, did not raise this argument in her opening brief, and did
not adopt it as a ground for reversal until oral argument. Should we consider
the government’s error under these circumstances?” Id. at *4.
Held: “We
conclude that we should.” Id.
Of Note: The ultimate holding – that the
prosecutor’s arguments rose to plain error – is great. What is particularly
interesting, however, is Judge Berzon’s thoughtful discussion of waiver. Over Judge Wallace’s dissent,
Judge Berzon carefully works through the practical impact, and the historical background,
of Rule 52. Id. at *5-*7. Waiver is
an important appellate principle, and Mageno’s
analysis is worth a careful defense read (particularly the Court’s emphasis on
the nature of this criminal case, and
the fact that a government representative erred). Id. at *7.
How to
Use: To get to reversal, Judge Berzon must navigate the treacherous
shoals of Olano plain error. She does
so admirably, and the result is a very useful discussion regarding a prosecutor’s misstatements
at closing argument. Id. at *7-*12.
Of particular interest is the rejection of the general cautionary jury
instructions as a “cure-all.” Id. at
*9. Those instructions were never expressly tied to the misstatements, so did
not vitiate the error. Id. Judge Berzon also rejects the government’s attempt to salvage the conviction by
arguing the prosecutor did not intentionally misstate the evidence. Id. at *11. The prosecutor’s statements
may not have been intentional misconduct, but they were “exceedingly reckless.” That, Judge Berzon explains, is enough. Id.
at *12. Judge Berzon rightly ends the decision by commending the government for
“bringing the missteps in this case to our attention,” but because “the
government also created the problem” concludes the Court must “reverse Mageno’s
conviction so that she may have an untainted shot at maintaining her innocence
without the prosecution’s damaging misstatements.” Id. at *12.
For
Further Reading: Seven years ago, the formidable Judge
Betty Fletcher wrote a beautiful dissent attacking the use of acquitted conduct as relevant conduct at
sentencing – using the Sixth Amendment as the foundation of her argument. See blog on Mercado here.
Is the Sentencing Commission finally coming around to Judge Fletcher’s view? In
its official list of priorities, the Commission promises a multi-year effort to
“simplify the operation of the guidelines,” including the examination of the “use
of acquitted conduct in applying the guidelines.” See Notice here.
A spark of interest, worth fanning into a flame over the upcoming year.
Image of "Do the Right Thing" from http://www.licknyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/licknyc_remebering-do-the-right-thing-25-years-later_01.jpg
Image
of the Hon. Judge Marsha Berzon from http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/JordeSymposium65.jpg
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Acquitted Conduct, Appellate Waiver, Berzon, Closing Arguments, Olano, Relevant Conduct, Sentencing Commission, Waivers
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home