F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 24 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 02-8050
v. D.C. No. 01-CR-138-03-B
(D. Wyoming)
KENNETH ANDREW MORRIS, also
known as Andy Morris, also known
as Kenneth Doerge,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case is therefore submitted without
oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for Conspiracy to Possess
with Intent to Distribute, and to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A) and 846. He claims that 1) his confession was not
sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, 2) his conviction should be
reversed because it was not supported by sufficient evidence, and 3) his
conviction should be reversed due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing
argument.
We review de novo questions regarding sufficiency of the evidence,
including sufficiency of corroboration. See United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d
1196, 1212 (10th Cir. 1999). We must determine whether any rational jury could
have found all of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). A conviction cannot be sustained
on appeal where the offense was proven solely by an extrajudicial confession.
United States v. Chimal, 976 F.2d 608, 610 (10th Cir. 1992). However, the
corroborating evidence does not have to independently establish each element of
the crime. Wiseman, 172 F.3d at 1212.
Our review of the briefs and the record reveal that the independent
evidence establishing the trustworthiness of Defendant’s confession was
sufficient. Defendant’s confession was corroborated by other evidence including
his co-conspirator Mr. Davila’s testimony, Special Agent Woodson’s independent
-2-
investigation, hotel records, and Defendant’s ability to pick out Mr. Davila’s
suppliers from large photographic arrays. Additionally, many of the details
specifically recounted by Defendant directly parallel information given by Mr.
Davila at trial and in other interviews.
Defendant then claims that even if his confession was properly submitted to
the jury, his conviction was still not supported by sufficient evidence. This claim
is without merit. A conspiracy conviction requires “(1) agreement with another
person to violate the law; (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the
conspiracy; (3) knowing and voluntary involvement; and (4) interdependence
among the alleged coconspirators.” United States v. Edwards, 69 F.3d 419, 430
(10th Cir. 1995) (quotations and citation omitted). Our review of the trial record
including Defendant’s confession, Mr. Davila’s testimony, and Special Agent
Woodson’s testimony, reveals that the jury was provided with enough evidence to
find Defendant guilty of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute, and to
Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),(b)(1)(A) and
846.
Defendant’s final claim is that his conviction should be reversed due to
prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Where Defendant made a
timely objection, we review the denial of a motion for new trial based on
prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments for an abuse of discretion.
-3-
United States v. Broomfield, 201 F.3d 1270, 1276 (10th Cir. 2000).
The prosecutor’s statements at issue are as follows:
At least be honest, ladies and gentlemen. Agent Woodson did not
say he did not believe anything Mr. Morris said. He said, “I believe
parts based on Mr. Davila’s testimony.” Don’t come in here and say
we didn’t follow up because we didn’t believe. If you really believe
that I don’t believe that Mr. Morris is guilty of these charges and
Agent Woodson doesn’t believe that and Agent Dobbs doesn’t
believe that, this is a lark for us – [Defense counsel objected, court
told prosecuting attorney he could not say what he believed.] If this
is just a lark for us, we’re down here trying to convict an innocent
person, acquit him. Acquit him. But that’s bunk, ladies and
gentlemen.
Rec., Vol. VII, at 313-14. The Government concedes on appeal that the
prosecutor’s comments were unprofessional. Aple. Br. at 32. We have long
recognized the impropriety of a prosecutor’s comments regarding his belief in the
accused’s guilt. See United States v. Ainesworth, 716 F.2d 769, 771 (10th Cir.
1983); United States v. Rios, 611 F.2d 1335, 1343 (10th Cir. 1979); United States
v. Coppola, 479 F.2d 1153, 1163 (10th Cir. 1973). Therefore, we further hold
that the comments in the instant case were improper.
Because the comments were improper, we must consider whether the
impropriety requires a new trial. United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486, 1491
(10th Cir. 1991). In order to make this determination, we must consider the trial
record as a whole and order a new trial only if the “prosecutor’s misconduct was
enough to influence the jury to render a conviction on grounds beyond the
-4-
admissible evidence.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
Our review of the record and the briefs reveals that the prosecutor’s
improper argument was in response to defense counsel’s closing argument that the
Government “did not believe that Defendant was a drug dealer.” Rec., Vol. VII,
at 301. Even though our review is for an abuse of discretion, we agree with the
district court that United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985), is instructive. In
Young, the Supreme Court held that the potential harm from prosecutor’s remarks
in which he stated his opinion that defendant was guilty did not amount to plain
error because prosecutor was responding to defense counsel’s repeated attacks on
the prosecution’s integrity. The Court stated that
[i]n order to make an appropriate assessment, the reviewing court
must not only weigh the impact of the prosecutor’s remarks, but must
also take into account defense counsel’s opening salvo. Thus the
import of the evaluation has been that if the prosecutor’s remarks
were “invited,” and did no more than respond substantially in order
to “right the scale,” such comments would not warrant reversing a
conviction.
Id. at 12-13. Because the prosecutor’s improper argument was in response to
defense counsel’s similarly improper argument attacking the Government’s
integrity, we hold that the remarks, in context, do not warrant overturning the
conviction.
Additionally, we note that the trial court took steps to mitigate any potential
harm caused by the improper arguments. In response to defense counsel’s
-5-
objection, the trial court told the Government’s attorney that he could not say
what he believed. The court also instructed the jury that the arguments of the
attorneys were not evidence in this case and that it could convict or acquit the
Defendant based only on the evidence. Additionally, the jury did not have a copy
of the trial transcript during deliberations. Therefore, we agree with the district
court that “the comments considered at their very worst as a commentary on the
[prosecuting attorney’s] belief did not prejudice the defendant.” Rec., Vol. V, at
32-33.
The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-6-