United States v. Iacona
728 F.3d 694
7th Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Chad Iacona, former process server, was convicted of access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft for obtaining a Wells Fargo Visa issued in owner Nancy Clymer’s name and incurring large personal charges.
- Iacona entered a purchase agreement to buy D & L Investigations from Clymer, ran the business while she retained title, and later received full ownership in 2008.
- Evidence showed Iacona opened multiple lines of credit in D & L’s and Clymer’s names, used cards for personal purchases, and maintained control of the accounts and mail.
- Wells Fargo Visa application was placed by Iacona’s sister Rebecca Rasmussen, who used Clymer’s personal data; account split into two $25,000 subaccounts making Clymer personally liable.
- Government presented witness testimony (Rasmussen, Clymer, office assistant Moehle, Postal Inspector Murrow), phone recording of the application, documentary summaries of charges and balance transfers; Iacona’s testimony denied directing the fraud.
- Iacona challenged prosecutor’s closing argument as improper prosecutorial misconduct for repeatedly calling him a liar; trial court conviction affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s repeated references to defendant as a liar in closing were improper prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor contends attacks on credibility were permissible where evidence supports inference that defendant lied; prosecutor may urge jury to consider inconsistencies | Iacona argues repeated characterizations as a liar exceeded fair advocacy, were unsupported by evidence, prejudicial, and denied a fair trial (no contemporaneous objection) | Statements were not improper: comments were supported by testimonial and documentary contradictions and were permissible credibility-based argument; affirmed |
| Standard of review for unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims | N/A | Iacona: plain-error review applies because no objection at trial | Court applied plain-error standard—defendant must show plain error affecting substantial rights and judicial integrity; no reversible error found |
| Whether prosecutor impermissibly expressed personal opinion on credibility | Prosecutor: argument was grounded in evidence and logical inferences, not personal belief | Iacona: argued prosecutor improperly injected personal opinion branding him a liar | Court: prosecutor confined argument to evidence-based inferences; did not offer personal opinion; permissible |
| Whether the closing argument’s tone/excessiveness rendered trial unfair | Prosecutor: may "strike hard blows" as long as not "foul ones" and evidence supports inference of lies | Iacona: repetition rendered attack excessive and impaired jury's detached search for truth | Court: remarks fell within permissible advocacy; not excessive given contradictions and sole defense being defendant’s testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tucker, 714 F.3d 1006 (7th Cir. 2013) (framework for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct claims)
- United States v. Hills, 618 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for misconduct claims)
- United States v. Martin, 692 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
- United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (prosecutor may call defendant a liar if evidence supports inference)
- Catalfo v. United States, 64 F.3d 1070 (7th Cir. 1995) (limits on repeated use of terms like "lies")
- United States v. Chaimson, 760 F.2d 798 (7th Cir. 1985) (excessive impeachment language can cross line)
- United States v. Goodapple, 958 F.2d 1402 (7th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing permissible argument from improper opinion)
- United States v. Craig, 573 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1977) (warning against excessive rhetorical attacks in closing)
- Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) (prosecutor may "strike hard blows" but not foul ones)