United States v. Barrera
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 469
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Barrera was convicted on two counts of assault involving Apodaca on Rosebud Indian Reservation.
- Schmidt pleaded guilty and testified against Barrera at trial; Barrera admitted he threw the first punch and delivered a final, hard kick.
- Apodaca suffered serious bodily injury; LaPointe also injured; the charges involved assault with a dangerous weapon and serious bodily injury.
- Barrera appealed claiming two prosecutorial misconduct instances deprived him of a fair trial.
- The government sought to question LaPointe about Barrera’s alleged prior abuse; the district court allowed a leading question but Barrera’s mistrial motion was denied.
- During closing, the prosecutor compared Barrera to kicking a 45-yard field goal, prompting defense objections; the court overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprive Barrera of a fair trial? | Barrera argues the misconduct was prejudicial cumulatively. | Government contends any improprieties were not prejudicial given strong evidence. | No reversible prejudice; strength of evidence and curative actions negate prejudice. |
| Was the domestic-violence reference improper and prejudicial? | LaPointe’s testimony about Barrera’s alleged abuse was improper and inflammatory. | Any reference was limited and not clearly tied to past abuse; not prejudicial. | Not prejudicial; insufficient link to past abuse and no impact on verdict. |
| Was the closing-argument ‘golden rule’ style remark prejudicial? | The remark invited jurors to imagine being attacked and biased the deliberations. | Comment was a legitimate, responsive closing argument; no reversible error. | Not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence and curative measures not required for reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Swift, 623 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for prosecutorial misconduct appeals)
- United States v. Beckman, 222 F.3d 512 (8th Cir. 2000) (closing-argument control and prejudice standard)
- United States v. Eldridge, 984 F.2d 943 (8th Cir. 1993) (prejudice assessment and standard of review for misconduct)
- United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593 (8th Cir. 2006) (cumulative-error framework in prejudice evaluation)
- United States v. Splain, 545 F.2d 1131 (8th Cir. 1976) (overwhelming evidence reduces likelihood of prejudice)
- United States v. Beeks, 224 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2000) (single improper act may warrant reversal if prejudicial)
- United States v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 768 (8th Cir. 1992) (single error potentially reversible depending on prejudice)
- United States v. Palma, 473 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2007) (golden-rule-like closing arguments appropriateness)
- Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 201 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2000) (necessity of curative admonitions after misconduct)