Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CR-98-00264-HG
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding.
Before TROTT, GRABER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Barbara Kim appeals her conviction following a jury trial on three counts of obstructing an Internal Revenue Service investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Kim contends that the district court erred by denying her motion for a mistrial made following comments by the prosecutor in rebuttal to Kim's closing argument. Specifically, Kim argues that the prosecutor impermissibly vouched for a government witness' veracity by stating the witness "entered a bond" with the government to testify truthfully by virtue of a plea agreement. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a motion for a mistrial. United States v. Frederick, 78 F.3d 1370, 1375 (9th Cir.1996).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Kim's motion for a mistrial. The prosecutor's comments were made in response to Kim's initial attack on the witness' credibility as a result of the plea agreement both during opening statements and at trial and, as such, do not constitute impermissible vouching. United States v. Shaw, 829 F.2d 714, 716 (9th Cir.1987); see also United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1445 n. 4 (9th Cir.1991). Moreover, Kim did not object to the prosecutor's comments and the district court gave a curative instruction. Shaw, 829 F.2d at 718.
AFFIRMED.