Green

MEMORANDUM **

Garrón Green appeals his conviction on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. *134 § 922 (g)(1). The facts are known to the parties and need not be recounted here.

I

Green argues that his conviction must be reversed because the Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) who tried the case improperly vouched for the credibility of government witnesses during closing arguments, while also denigrating Green’s credibility.

“As a general rule, a prosecutor may not express his opinion of the defendant’s guilt or his belief in the credibility of government witnesses.” United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440, 1444 (9th Cir.1991). “Whether the witnesses have testified truthfully ... is entirely for the jury to determine; it is improper to communicate that a credibility determination has been made by the AUSA, law enforcement agents, or the court, or that the government knows whether the witness is being truthful and stands behind the veracity of the witness’s testimony.” United States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d 1274, 1279 (9th Cir.2004).

Here, the AUSA interspersed the following assertions…

Concurring.

I separately concur to state that I would also reverse on the grounds that the district court: (1) abused its discretion in *135 admitting evidence of the domestic dispute which preceded the arrest; (2) committed plain error in admitting the daughter’s written statement; and (3) abused its discretion in admitting the tape recording of the wrife’s 911 call.

First, testimony regarding the domestic dispute was more prejudicial that probative and should have been excluded under Fed.R.Evid. 403. In general, courts will allow the prsecution to present evidence of “other acts” where such evidence is “inextricably intertwined” with the offense. See, e.g., United States v. Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Daly, 974 F.2d 1215, 1216 (9th Cir.1992) (prosecutor may introduce evidence of defendant’s participation in a “shootout” to prove “possession” element). Moreover, courts will generally allow a prosecutor latitude to present a “coherent and comprehensible story” to the jury. See Vizcarra-Martinez, 66 F.3d at 1012 . Here, however, detailed testimony regarding the domestic dispute was not “necessary” to present a “coherent and…