Hill

MEMORANDUM *

Gerald Lee Hill appeals the judgment of conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 , 2241(c) and the 135-month sentence imposed by the district court. Hill argues that he is entitled to a new trial based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); prejudicial witness vouching by the State’s expert and by the prosecutor; and the prosecutor’s unconstitutional comments on his silence after he received his Miranda warnings. 1 He also objects to the reasonableness of his sentence.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We conclude that Hill’s conviction and sentence must be reversed because under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 , 96 S.Ct. 2240 , 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), the prosecutor’s comments on Hill’s Mirandized silence violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Because we reverse for a new trial on this basis, we need not address Hill’s remaining objections.

At trial, the prosecutor introduced a photograph of Hill’s living room that had been taken by Agent Winfield Scott Russell on November 7, 2003, several weeks after the alleged incident. On cross-examination, when questioned about the photograph, Hill testified…