United States v. Winston Bontrager

MEMORANDUM

Winston Bontrager and Pauline Anderson (“Defendants”) appeal their con victions stemming from a tax-evasion scheme. We affirm.

We review Defendants’ prosecutorial misconduct claims for plain error because no objection was made below. See United States v. Tomsha-Miguel, 766 F.3d 1041, 1047 (9th Cir.2014). It is clear that some misconduct occurred. For example, it was improper for the prosecutor to refer to Bontrager’s accountant, a prosecution witness, as “meticulous, careful and honest,” when the accountant offered strong evidence against Bontrager. See United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.1993) (“Vouching consists of placing the prestige of the government behind a witness through personal assurances of the witness’s veracity, or suggesting that information not presented to the jury supports the witness’s testimony.”); United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.1992) (holding that it was impermissible vouching for prosecutor to say in closing argument that a prosecution witness “was candid. I think he was honest”). It also was improper for the prosecutor to offer his own account of when federal agents “spring into action” and “careful[ly]…