United States v. Felipe Medina-Navejar

MEMORANDUM

Felipe Medina-Navejar appeals his conviction for attempted illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We affirm.

First, Medina argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument when she suggested that, at the time of his arrest, Medina did not express surprise or provide an innocent explanation for his presence in the United States. Medina argues that this was misconduct because the prosecutor knew that a few hours after his arrest Medina told a Border Patrol Agent that he had accidentally crossed the border.

It is well within the bounds of fair advocacy for a prosecutor to ask the jury to draw “reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial.” United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1406 , 1409 (9th Cir.1997). Because the prosecutor did nothing more, her closing argument was proper. First, she accurately summarized testimony regarding Medina’s answers to a Border Patrol Agent at the scene of arrest (Medina admitted that he was a Mexican citizen and did not have permission to be in the United States). Then she asked the jury to infer that Medina must have known that he was in the United States because he did not express…