Hall v. United States

118 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Lamerson

    457 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1972)   Cited 45 times
    In United States v. Lamerson, 457 F.2d 371 (5th Cir. 1972), and Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969), relied on by defendant, the prosecutor's arguments were not authorized by evidence before the jury, whereas in the case before us there was evidence before the jury from which the prosecutor's deductions could be made.

    Even the lesser suggestion that the Government tries to prosecute only the guilty has been held reversible error by this Court. In Hall v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 582, 587, this Court held: "The statement `we try to prosecute only the guilty' is not defensible. Expressions of individual opinion of guilt are dubious at best.

  2. U.S. v. Garza

    608 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 153 times
    Holding prosecutor's improper vouching constituted reversible error when conviction turned on credibility

    Except to the extent he bases any opinion on the evidence in the case, he may not express his personal opinion on the merits of the case or the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriquez, 585 F.2d 1234, 1243-44 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Morris, supra, 568 F.2d at 401; Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 585-87 (5th Cir. 1969). Furthermore, he may not suggest that evidence which was not presented at trial provides additional grounds for finding defendant guilty. See, e.g., United States v. Morris, supra, 568 F.2d at 401; Hall v. United States, supra, 419 F.2d at 587; Gradsky v. United States, 373 F.2d 706, 710 (5th Cir. 1967).

  3. U.S. v. Johnson

    713 F. Supp. 2d 595 (E.D. La. 2010)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that trial court erred by allowing 40 uniformed officers to attend the hearings, and that it “should have granted the defense motion [by] insist[ing] that any appearances by law enforcement in the audience be in plain clothes”

    The Fifth Circuit has long acknowledged the "double burden which the United States Attorney carries" as set forth in Berger. Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 588 (5th Cir. 1969). It "carried that doctrine forward" in Handford v. United States, 249 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir. 1957) as follows:

  4. U.S. v. GOFF

    847 F.2d 149 (5th Cir. 1988)   Cited 69 times
    Holding that defendants were not substantially prejudiced by the prosecutor's stating in rebuttal that "[e]very lawyer that has spoken to you from the defense side has taken things out of context. They have . . . cut off what they want[ed] to cut off and told you what they want[ed] you to hear and in some cases flat out misstated what the evidence was"

    In Garza we found plain error and reversed. Here the prosecutor's recitation of government agencies and entities which, he clearly implies, knew appellants to be guilty is improper in the light of what we said in Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969). Appellants did object to the prosecutor's stating, during trial, "[T]he United States . . . means me."

  5. Brooks v. Kemp

    762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir. 1985)   Cited 264 times
    Holding the district court erred—though harmlessly—by permitting the prosecutor to argue "Why should we as taxpayers have to house this man for fifty years? Why should we have to feed him three meals a day for fifty years, clothe him for fifty years, furnish him recreation, medical care?"

    Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge, are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none. 295 U.S. at 88, 55 S.Ct. at 633; see also United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1978);Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1969). Thus, our review of alleged errors in argument must be informed by an awareness that the prosecutorial mantle of authority can intensify the effect on the jury of any misconduct.

  6. United States v. Pariente

    558 F.2d 1186 (5th Cir. 1977)   Cited 10 times
    Reversing conviction because prosecutor commented on spouse's failure to testify

    Appellant contends, and we agree, that the prosecutor's reference to Coronado's alleged sworn statement had the improper effect of placing before the jury for its consideration extrinsic matter asserted as fact though not in evidence; that the jury could have concluded that the sworn statement was not available to them due to some legal technicality; and that the effect of the prosecutor's remark was to impugn the credibility of Pariente tending to show his guilt. See Hall v. United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F.2d 582, 583. In speaking of prosecutorial misconduct, the Supreme Court said in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935), assertions of personal knowledge by the prosecutor "are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none."

  7. United States v. Smith

    814 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 26 times
    Finding impermissible the "prosecutor's remark ... that the Government had no incentive to try [the defendant] unless he were in fact guilty"

    United States v. Leslie, 759 F.2d 366, 378 (5th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. Lamerson, 457 F.2d 371, 372 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Gradsky v. United States, 373 F.2d 706, 709 (5th Cir.1967)).Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 583 (5th Cir.1969).United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir.1978) (citations omitted).

  8. Oliver v. McNeil

    CASE NO. 4:07cv280-SPM/WCS (N.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2008)

    Id. Petitioner asserts that this argument was improper, citing Buckhann v. State, 356 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Doc. 8, p. 10. Petitioner asserts that the prosecutor may not imply that the State would not have brought the case unless the defendant was guilty. Id., p. 11, citing,United States v. Garza, 608 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1979); Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 583-584 (5th Cir. 1969); Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1934); and other cases. Id. Petitioner argues that this phrase takes guilt "as a predetermined fact."

  9. U.S. v. Gatto

    995 F.2d 449 (3d Cir. 1993)   Cited 55 times
    Holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under Rule 404(b) to show consciousness of guilt

    )See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 759 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971, 106 S.Ct. 336, 88 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); United States v. Qamar, 671 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1982); Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1969); C. Wright K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5240, at 474 (1978). In allowing threat evidence for other purposes under Rule 404(b), courts have applied the same standard to threats occurring inside and outside the courtroom.

  10. U.S. v. Carter

    953 F.2d 1449 (5th Cir. 1992)   Cited 92 times
    Finding Doyle error harmless where “the story being impeached [was] essentially peripheral to [the defendant's] defense”

    The abuse to be guarded against is a prosecutor invoking considerations that are outside of the record evidence and would not have been deemed admissible evidence at trial. Thus, we have condemned suggestions that evidence not presented at trial would compel a finding of guilty, see, e.g., United States v. Morris, 568 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir. 1978); Hall v. United States, 419 F.2d 582, 585 (5th Cir. 1969), and efforts to create the impression that the government, which possesses a "vast investigatory network" and whose determinations may both have a stamp of credibility and invoke jurors' loyalty, has already made an extrajudicial determination of guilt, see, e.g., United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149, 163-64 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Kuntze v. United States, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 324, 102 L.Ed.2d 341 (1988); Hall, 419 F.2d at 583-84.