Chaggar

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Kuldip Chaggar appeals from his conviction following a bench trial in the Western District of Washington of one count of intimidating a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b), and one count of harassing a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (d). The United States cross-appeals Chaggar’s sentence of 12 months and one day.

Prosecutorial Vouching

Chaggar first contends that, at several points, the prosecutor improperly vouched for the credibility of its key witness, the victim, Sunita Vartia. We are unpersuaded. Because Chaggar’s opening statement clearly implied that Vartia was lying in the hopes of receiving favorable treatment from the government, the prosecutor was entitled to elicit information regarding the “truth-telling” provisions in Vartia’s plea agreement. United States v. Monroe, 943 F.2d 1007, 1014 (9th Cir. 1991). The allegedly improper testimony by the case agent, Agent Leininger, was not elicited by the prosecutor, and thus cannot be said to be prosecutorial vouching. See United States v. Tavakkoly, 238 F.3d 1062, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2001). And the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument were a fair response to the defense’s…