00-2744 U.S. v. Xiong

Listen to this article

“Reading the statements in context … we conclude that the prosecutor did not disparage defense counsel’s character. In his closing argument, defense counsel argued that the government suffered from tunnel vision and put on perjured testimony. The prosecutor responded by stating that counsel resorted to a government conspiracy argument despite the earlier promise. This response went to the credibility of the defense not defense counsel.

“The prosecutor’s subsequent remarks, including ‘What [counsel] is telling you is that you should never be able to convict somebody in this type of conspiracy, because you can never have enough evidence …’, attempted to show that the defense’s argument was overbroad. These remarks were likewise directed at the defendant’s case not defense counsel. Moreover, it was proper for the prosecutor to comment on the lameness of the defendant’s case. … Thus, reading the statements in context, we conclude that the prosecutor’s statements did not disparage defense counsel’s character.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Williams, J.