United States v. Miguel Martinez

MEMORANDUM

The district court did not plainly err in denying Martinez’s motion for a new trial because the prosecutor’s statements in closing argument did not constitute impermissible vouching: they neither bolstered the credibility of a government witness nor suggested that there was additional evidence the jury was not being shown. See United States v. Hermanek, 289 F.3d 1076, 1098 (9th Cir.2002). The prosecutor’s “we know” statements did not depict the prosecutor as part of the investigatory team but rather were a rhetorical device used to summarize the evidence and describe per missible inferences. See id. Moreover, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there is no reason to think that these claimed improprieties “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, or ... would result in a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Geston, 299 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Tank Huu Lam, 251 F.3d 852, 861 (9th Cir.2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not clearly err in determining that Martinez was responsible for more than 10,000 kilograms of marijuana. Assuming that the relevant…