Bruce Senator v. Steven Sentman
703 F. App'x 506
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Bruce Senator convicted by jury of two counts of making criminal threats to two administrative law judges who had presided over his workers’ compensation claim.
- Senator argued at trial that the judges were not credible, accusing them of fixing cases and lying about feeling threatened.
- During closing, prosecutor replied that if the judges said something happened, it happened, and described their credibility as untouchable.
- Senator did not object to the prosecutor’s closing remarks at trial and raised prosecutorial misconduct in a § 2254 habeas petition.
- The magistrate judge found the comments were impermissible vouching but harmless after the trial court’s instructions; the district court denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the prosecutor’s remarks were a permissible response to Senator’s credibility-focused theory and not improper vouching.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s closing argument constituted impermissible vouching that violated due process | Prosecutor vouched for judges’ credibility, improperly bolstering witnesses and injecting Government prestige | Prosecutor was responding to defense attack on judges’ credibility; argument was a permissible rebuttal and did not invoke Government prestige | Held for defendant: remarks were not impermissible vouching given context and lack of credibility problems with witnesses |
| Standard of review for unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct | N/A — Senator did not object at trial | Review for plain error; habeas relief requires showing comments infected trial with unfairness or had substantial injurious effect | Court applied plain-error/habeas standards and found no reversible error |
| Whether prosecutor improperly injected Government’s opinion/ prestige | Claimed prosecutor made definitive, authoritative statements about truth of judges’ testimony | Government argued it did not use pronouns or assert its own belief; it referenced judges’ positions as relevant to credibility | Held: no injection of Government prestige; prosecutor did not state personal belief and limited remarks to witnesses’ roles |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (certificate of appealability expansion) | Senator sought expansion claiming counsel ineffective | Government/Panel required substantial showing of constitutional violation | Denied—Senator failed to make substantial showing of constitutional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial comments require reversal only if they "so infected the trial with unfairness" as to deny due process)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (standard for evaluating prosecutorial statements)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas relief requires showing substantial and injurious effect on verdict)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (harmless-error standard reference)
- Alcantara-Castillo v. United States, 788 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.) (distinguishable precedent where witnesses had significant credibility problems)
- United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir.) (reasonable inference in credibility contests may support rebuttal argument)
- United States v. Molina, 934 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir.) (discussing argument that one side is lying when facts conflict)
- United States v. Kerr, 981 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir.) (examples of improper vouching where prosecutor asserts personal belief in witness honesty)
- Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir.) (standard for certificate of appealability and ineffective assistance showing)